Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The administration of the President of the United States, Donald Trump, filed an extraordinary complaint against the district judicial system of Maryland and his federal judges, accusing them of having “used and abused” of their powers to thwart deportations.
The complaint was filed late Tuesday. In its 22 pages, the administration accuses the federal courts of Maryland of “illegal and anti-democratic” behavior to set limits to the deportation policies of Trump.
Fifteen district judges are appointed among the defendants, just like a clerk, one of the administrative officials of the judicial system.
The complaint advances an argument that Trump and his allies have long argued publicly: that the president has the mandate of the voters to carry out his mass expulsion campaign – and that the courts are on the way.
“The injunctions against the executive power are particularly extraordinary because they interfere with the exercise by this democratically responsible branch of its constitutional powers,” said the trial.
He seeks an immediate injunction against a recent decision by chief judge George Russell III, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.
Russell had issued a permanent order which would automatically take into force each time an immigrant files a petition for Habeas Corpus – in other words, a petition disputing his detention.
The ordinance of the chief judge prevents the Trump administration from deporting the immigrant in question for a period of two working days after the deposit of the petition. This period added Russell, can be extended to the discretion of the court.
The idea is to protect the right of an immigrant to a regular procedure – their right to a fair hearing in the legal system – so that he has time to call on his deportation if necessary.
But the Trump administration said that Russell’s order and other orders from the federal judges of Maryland do nothing more than to overthrow the president’s power to exercise their authority over immigration policy.
“Each illegal prescription entered by the district courts deprives the executive branch of its rarest resource: the time to put its policies in force,” said the trial.
Trump’s immigration policies have been faced with hundreds of legal challenges since the president took office for his second term in January.
Tuesday’s trial admits so much, quoting this fact as a legal bias against the Trump immigration program.
“During the first 100 days of President Trump’s current mandate, the district courts registered more injunctions at the national level than during the 100 years from 1900 to 2000, forcing the Supreme Court to intervene again and again in recent weeks,” said the trial.
The Supreme Court has confirmed the right to regular procedure, writing in recent cases like JGG against Trump that immigrants must be able to request a legal examination for their cases.
But criticisms argued that other recent decisions have undermined this commitment. Earlier this week, for example, the Supreme Court raised the decision of a lower court which prohibited the US government from deporting immigrants to third countries without notice.
Tuesday’s trial against the Maryland federal court system seems ready to test if the judicial branch can continue to serve as a check against the powers of the executive management, at least with regard to immigration.
The trial attacks the judicial orders linked to Maryland immigration on several fronts. For example, he wonders if “an immediate and irreparable injury” is probably in cases of expulsion. He also claims that the federal courts hamper the immigration courts – which fall under the authority of the executive power – of the deportations in green light.
But the complaint also highlights the need for speed in the execution of the moves of immigrants from the United States.
“The moves can take months of sensitive diplomacy to organize and often not to meet completely before the last minute,” said the Trump administration trial.
“A delay can cancel all these arrangements and require additional months of work before the withdrawal can be tempted again.”
Maryland is a reliably and democratic state, and the Trump administration has received important setbacks in its federal courts.
This, in turn, led the president and his allies to denounce the courts for “judicial depot”, a theme taken up in the Judicial file on Tuesday.
One of the most important cases of immigration taking place in the United States is that of Kilmar Abrego GarciaA Salvadoral Immigrant and Resident of Maryland who was expelled despite a protection order allowing him to stay in the country. His lawyers argued that he fled El Salvador to escape the violence of the gangs.
His expulsion was challenged before the district judge Paula Xinis, one of the judges appointed in the complaint on Tuesday.
Xinis governed in early April That the United States must “facilitate and carry out” the return of Abrego Garcia of El Salvador prison where it was detained, and the Supreme Court confirmed this decision – although it has struck the word “do” to be clear.
Maryland judge then ordered the Trump administration To provide updates on the steps he was taking to return Abrego Garcia to the United States. She has since indicated that the administration could be held in court in court so as not to do it.
Abrego Garcia was suddenly returned In the United States on June 6, after more than two and a half months imprisoned in Salvador. The Trump administration said that she had brought him back to face criminal accusations for human trafficking in Tennessee. This case is currently underway, and Abrego Garcia denied accusations against him.
This legal proceedings and the orders of Xinis were not explicitly appointed in Tuesday’s trial. But the complaint offered a large review of orders like hers.
“Permanent orders without law of defendants are nothing more than a particularly blatant example of an exceeding of judicial interfering with the prerogatives of the executive branches”, explained the trial, “and thus undergo the democratic process”.
