August 14, 2025 • 12 mins
The value of the lawsuit lay in the act of filing it itself. The suit served as a public "warning" to other states and jurisdictions considering similar policies and was perceived by some as an attempt to "intimidate" state judges into complying with the federal executive's policies. The case, therefore, demonstrates the use of the judicial system by an executive branch to exert political pressure and assert dominance, even without a strong legal or factual foundation.
The challenge facing federal courts is not only the complexity of habeas law but also the sheer volume of petitions filed each year. Federal courts receive approximately 10,000 to 19,000 habeas petitions annually, constituting about 4% of the total federal district court civil caseload.6 This high volume, coupled with the stringent procedural requirements of AEDPA, creates a significant administrative burden.
Trump admin lawsuit v Maryland judges
Courtesy of Associated Press
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/go-beyond-the-brief--6353252/support.
The challenge facing federal courts is not only the complexity of habeas law but also the sheer volume of petitions filed each year. Federal courts receive approximately 10,000 to 19,000 habeas petitions annually, constituting about 4% of the total federal district court civil caseload.6 This high volume, coupled with the stringent procedural requirements of AEDPA, creates a significant administrative burden.
Trump admin lawsuit v Maryland judges
Courtesy of Associated Press
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/go-beyond-the-brief--6353252/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You found the podcast Go Beyond the Brief, where we
take a deep dive into the societal currents shaping our lives. Together,
we'll explore the often unseen forces at play. We'll examine
the research, dissect the data, and, most importantly, if you're
seeking to understand what's shaping our society.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Diving into something pretty fascinating, maybe even a bit surprising,
a constitutional clash. It's about the Trump administration suing Maryland
judge's over immigration enforcement.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Yeah, and this deep dive, it's really about pulling apart
the different threads of that whole dispute, how it started,
the drama and the middle, and how it all wrapped up.
It's a great little example actually of checks and balances
working in practice, kind of a microcosm of these bigger
power struggles that can play out well right in your
local courthouse.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Okay, right, let's get into it then. So the story
starts with the Trump administration ramping up federal immigration enforcement.
Part of that strategy involved more civil immigration arrests in
places they called sensitive.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Location, schools, hospitals.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
And crucially for the story, courthouses, and specifically in Maryland,
people noticed a real uptick in icy activity inside courthouses exactly.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
And you can see why that's tricky, right. A courthouse
is where people have to go often when they're feeling
pretty vulnerable. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
So what's really interesting is how the judges reacted. Back
in twenty seventeen, a group of fifteen Maryland judges, they
put out what's called a standing order, a standing.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Order like a house rules for the court pretty much.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Yeah, think of it that way. It wasn't a total
ban on arrests or anything. It was a procedural rule. Basically,
it said federal ic agents needed to get a judicial
warrant from a judge before they could make a civil
immigration arrest inside the courthouse.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Okay, so get a warrant first. Why did they feel
they needed to do.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
That Well, their stated reason was about protecting the court's
ability to actually function and making sure the public could
access justice. They were worried that these courthouse arrests would
scare people away, scare who away vulnerable people, mainly you know,
victims of domestic violence needing protection orders, or maybe key
witnesses in criminal cases, people who might just not show
(02:11):
up if they fear being arrested by ice. The moment
they walk in.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Okay, I see. So the judges basically drill line our courthouse,
our rules, get a warrant. That sounds bold.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
It was definitely a statement.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
So how did the administration take that?
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Well? Not lying down. In May twenty nineteen, the Department
of Justice, acting for the administration filed a.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Lawsuit against the judges themselves, directly.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
Against those judges. Yes, they argued that this standing order,
this warrant requirement, was an unconstitutional obstruction of federal law
enforcement abstraction. How be framed it under the supremacy clause
of the Constitution, ah.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
The supremacy clause federal law, trump's state law generally speaking exactly.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
The DOJ's argument was, look, these state judges are blocking
federal agents from doing their job of violating federal supremacy.
The US attorney from Maryland at the time even made
the claim that the judges were trying to set up
courthouses as quote unquote sanctuaries.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Wow, sanctuaries. That strong language. But couldn't the government argue,
you know that needing a warrant is just red tape,
that it slows things down.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
They certainly implied that, But the judge's defense was pretty straightforward.
They essentially said, look, we're not stopping arrests, were just
requiring a warrant.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Which is a standard legal.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Process, right, It's a basic check. And here's the kicker.
The government's case ultimately fell apart because well, they didn't
have the evidence.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
No evidence, what do you mean?
Speaker 3 (03:36):
The District Court judge George J. Hazel, he looked at
the case and dismissed it in October twenty twenty. He
specifically noted a complete lack of evidence from the government.
They couldn't point to even a single example his words,
of an arrest that was actually prevented because of this
standing order, not one.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
So the whole obstruction argument was just theoretical apparently.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
So oh, and that dismissal was upheld later by the
Fourth Thirket Court of Appeals in July twenty twenty one.
The appeals court even called the government's claims speculative and
well that was pretty much the end of that legal battle.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Okay, So, stepping back from the legal weeds, what's the
bigger takeaway here for you? What does this tell us?
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I think it's a really powerful, sort of concrete example
of judicial independence in.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Action, meaning the court's pushing back against the executive branch.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Yes, and showing the limits of trying to use the
federal courts, maybe for political ends, without having solid evidence
to back up your claims. The rulings really affirmed that
state courts have a right to manage their own house, basically,
their own precedings, their own facilities.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Even if that means putting a procedural hurdle like a
warrant requirement in front of a federal agency exactly.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
And that outcome it sets a precedent you know it'll
likely be brought up in other cases. It establishes that
state courts have a real legitimate interest in keeping their
courthouses safe and accessible for everyone, and that acts as
an important check on federal executive power.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
So this case, which might seem kind of narrow just
marilyn courthouses and warrants, it actually shines a light on
something much bigger. It shows that the whole system of
checks and balances in the US it can be pretty resilient.
The judiciary can act as that constitutional.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
Backstop precisely, and maybe it leaves you with something to
think about too. Consider this, how do these actions by
judges and courts often happening quietly, sort of behind the scenes,
in your own community. How do they actually work to
protect fundamental access to justice for everybody? Something to mull over,
maybe long after this deep dive is done.
You found the podcast Go Beyond the Brief, where we
take a deep dive into the societal currents shaping our lives. Together,
we'll explore the often unseen forces at play. We'll examine
the research, dissect the data, and, most importantly, if you're
seeking to understand what's shaping our society.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Diving into something pretty fascinating, maybe even a bit surprising,
a constitutional clash. It's about the Trump administration suing Maryland
judge's over immigration enforcement.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Yeah, and this deep dive, it's really about pulling apart
the different threads of that whole dispute, how it started,
the drama and the middle, and how it all wrapped up.
It's a great little example actually of checks and balances
working in practice, kind of a microcosm of these bigger
power struggles that can play out well right in your
local courthouse.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Okay, right, let's get into it then. So the story
starts with the Trump administration ramping up federal immigration enforcement.
Part of that strategy involved more civil immigration arrests in
places they called sensitive.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Location, schools, hospitals.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
And crucially for the story, courthouses, and specifically in Maryland,
people noticed a real uptick in icy activity inside courthouses exactly.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
And you can see why that's tricky, right. A courthouse
is where people have to go often when they're feeling
pretty vulnerable. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
So what's really interesting is how the judges reacted. Back
in twenty seventeen, a group of fifteen Maryland judges, they
put out what's called a standing order, a standing.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Order like a house rules for the court pretty much.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Yeah, think of it that way. It wasn't a total
ban on arrests or anything. It was a procedural rule. Basically,
it said federal ic agents needed to get a judicial
warrant from a judge before they could make a civil
immigration arrest inside the courthouse.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Okay, so get a warrant first. Why did they feel
they needed to do.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
That Well, their stated reason was about protecting the court's
ability to actually function and making sure the public could
access justice. They were worried that these courthouse arrests would
scare people away, scare who away vulnerable people, mainly you know,
victims of domestic violence needing protection orders, or maybe key
witnesses in criminal cases, people who might just not show
(02:11):
up if they fear being arrested by ice. The moment
they walk in.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Okay, I see. So the judges basically drill line our courthouse,
our rules, get a warrant. That sounds bold.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
It was definitely a statement.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
So how did the administration take that?
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Well? Not lying down. In May twenty nineteen, the Department
of Justice, acting for the administration filed a.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Lawsuit against the judges themselves, directly.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
Against those judges. Yes, they argued that this standing order,
this warrant requirement, was an unconstitutional obstruction of federal law
enforcement abstraction. How be framed it under the supremacy clause
of the Constitution, ah.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
The supremacy clause federal law, trump's state law generally speaking exactly.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
The DOJ's argument was, look, these state judges are blocking
federal agents from doing their job of violating federal supremacy.
The US attorney from Maryland at the time even made
the claim that the judges were trying to set up
courthouses as quote unquote sanctuaries.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Wow, sanctuaries. That strong language. But couldn't the government argue,
you know that needing a warrant is just red tape,
that it slows things down.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
They certainly implied that, But the judge's defense was pretty straightforward.
They essentially said, look, we're not stopping arrests, were just
requiring a warrant.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Which is a standard legal.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Process, right, It's a basic check. And here's the kicker.
The government's case ultimately fell apart because well, they didn't
have the evidence.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
No evidence, what do you mean?
Speaker 3 (03:36):
The District Court judge George J. Hazel, he looked at
the case and dismissed it in October twenty twenty. He
specifically noted a complete lack of evidence from the government.
They couldn't point to even a single example his words,
of an arrest that was actually prevented because of this
standing order, not one.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
So the whole obstruction argument was just theoretical apparently.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
So oh, and that dismissal was upheld later by the
Fourth Thirket Court of Appeals in July twenty twenty one.
The appeals court even called the government's claims speculative and
well that was pretty much the end of that legal battle.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Okay, So, stepping back from the legal weeds, what's the
bigger takeaway here for you? What does this tell us?
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I think it's a really powerful, sort of concrete example
of judicial independence in.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Action, meaning the court's pushing back against the executive branch.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Yes, and showing the limits of trying to use the
federal courts, maybe for political ends, without having solid evidence
to back up your claims. The rulings really affirmed that
state courts have a right to manage their own house, basically,
their own precedings, their own facilities.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Even if that means putting a procedural hurdle like a
warrant requirement in front of a federal agency exactly.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
And that outcome it sets a precedent you know it'll
likely be brought up in other cases. It establishes that
state courts have a real legitimate interest in keeping their
courthouses safe and accessible for everyone, and that acts as
an important check on federal executive power.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
So this case, which might seem kind of narrow just
marilyn courthouses and warrants, it actually shines a light on
something much bigger. It shows that the whole system of
checks and balances in the US it can be pretty resilient.
The judiciary can act as that constitutional.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
Backstop precisely, and maybe it leaves you with something to
think about too. Consider this, how do these actions by
judges and courts often happening quietly, sort of behind the scenes,
in your own community. How do they actually work to
protect fundamental access to justice for everybody? Something to mull over,
maybe long after this deep dive is done.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!