Lawsuit Against Federal Judges Dismissed – “[T]hese are not normal times.”

“There comes a time when the court must say that enough is enough.”

August 25, 2025

“Possession, Custody, or Control” of State Agency Documents by State Attorneys General?

September 3, 2025

Published by Michael Berman at August 26, 2025

Tags

In USA v. Chief Judge George L. Russell III, in his official capacity, et al., No. 1:25-cv-02029 (D. Md. Aug. 26, 2025), the Hon. Thomas T. Cullen dismissed all claims against the Maryland Federal Bench and Court.

Much could be written; however, I suggest that the decision “speaks for itself.” Excerpts follow:

“Although some tension between the coordinate branches of government is a hallmark of our constitutional system, this concerted effort by the Executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it is both unprecedented and unfortunate.” [emphasis added].

“To start, this is ‘an extraordinarily unusual lawsuit.’ United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670,686 (2023). So before explaining the specific reasons for dismissal, the court takes a moment to ground itself in two simple, but fundamental, constitutional precepts that guide much of its analysis. First, the executive branch is not the sole sovereign in the United States of America. Second, the federal judiciary does not have plenary power, unmoored from a justiciable case or controversy or cause of action, to review any allegation of constitutional misconduct. As the Supreme Court has explained, the ‘Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system’ that made the United States of America—not a single branch—the sovereign, by ‘dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches.’ United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 707 (1974). The coordinate branches together form the government of the United States of America, and together they are the sovereign in this Nation.”

“Regrettably, this lawsuit effectively pits two of those branches against one another. But it is important to remember that, at bottom, all branches—and the public officials who serve in them—share the same core sovereign interest: To support and defend the Constitution. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8 (President’s Oath); U.S. Const. art. VI, § 1, cl. 3 (Legislative and Judicial Officers’ Oath).”

“In their wisdom, the Constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign. That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another’s authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the Judiciary’s constitutional role.”

“The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, as an entity of the sovereign United States, is immune from suit and the Executive’s claims against it must be dismissed.”

“As pleaded, the defendant judges are entitled to judicial immunity. That necessarily means the defendant Clerk of Court, whose only alleged sin is implementing the standing orders, is protected under the same doctrine.”

“Defendants also move to dismiss the Executive’s lawsuit because it does not identify a cause of action that allows it in the first place. The court again agrees. Dismissal of the Executive’s suit is appropriate because it has not pointed to a cause of action that permits the court to entertain a lawsuit between two coordinate branches of government, and this court will not be the first to create one.”

“[P]ermitting federal injunctive or declaratory relief against a federal judge opens a can of worms that otherwise remains sealed…. Allowing injunctive relief against federal judges would be to permit a ‘horizontal appeal’ from one district court to another or even ‘reverse review’ of a ruling of the court of appeals by a district court.” [cleaned up; citations, quotations, etc., removed].

“The Executive contends that the recent standing orders constitute a direct assault on its plenary authority to police immigration matters and enforce the nation’s immigration laws.”

“If these arguments were made in the proper forum, they might well get some traction. And under normal circumstances, it would not be surprising if the Executive raised these concerns through the channels Congress prescribed…”

“But as events over the past several months have revealed, these are not normal times—at least regarding the interplay between the Executive and this coordinate branch of government. It’s no surprise that the Executive chose a different, and more confrontational, path entirely. Instead of appealing any one of the affected habeas cases or filing a rules challenge with the Judicial Council, the Executive decided to sue—and in a big way.” [emphasis added].

“On June 24, the Executive filed a complaint in the District of Maryland naming Chief Judge Russell as the lead defendant, but adding, ostensibly for good measure, every other active and senior (i.e., semi-retired) judge in the district (15 in total), the Clerk of Court, and the court itself (collectively, ‘Defendants’). In casting its wide net, the Executive ensnared an entire judicial body—a vital part of this coordinate branch of government—and its principal officers in novel and potentially calamitous litigation.”

“Any fair reading of the legal authorities cited by Defendants leads to the ineluctable conclusion that this court has no alternative but to dismiss. To hold otherwise would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”

“The mere filing of this suit required the recusal of the entire federal bench in the District of Maryland and the assignment of this out-of-district judge who, by this designation, is theoretically empowered to enjoin his fellow district judges and, by extension, hold them in contempt for violating the court’s orders. If the case were to survive a motion to dismiss, the parties—the individual judicial defendants and principal officers of the Executive, including the Secretary of Homeland Security and the United States Attorney General—would potentially be required to sit for depositions and produce documents, including emails and other internal communications, relevant to the issuance of the standing orders and the actual reasons for filing suit. These discovery demands, in turn, would almost certainly trigger claims of privilege—executive, judicial, deliberative-process, and the like—and invariably compound this constitutional standoff into epic proportions.” [emphasis added].

“The court finds that (A) the Executive lacks standing to bring its claim for injunctive relief, but even disregarding that critical flaw, its entire complaint is subject to dismissal because (B) Defendants are immune from suit and, (C) alternatively, the Executive fails to identify a legitimate cause of action that allows it to bring this lawsuit.”

For background, please see Motion to Dismiss Filed by Judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland – E-Discovery LLC (Jul. 22, 2025).

See generally: