MSBA Files Amicus Brief in Support of Federal Judges, Presiding Judge Dismisses Case
MSBA CONTINUES TO LEAD THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN SUPPORTING AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY AND RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW.
ON JULY 31, 2025, MSBA filed an amicus brief in U.S. v. Russell, an unprecedented case involving the government’s challenge to the legality of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland’s Standing Order (Standing Order) of a 48-hour stay on deportations of migrants challenging their removal. The government claimed that the Standing Order was overreaching and undermined the executive branch’s authority. In its suit challenging the Standing Order, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued every Maryland federal district court judge, certain retired judges, the Clerk of the Court, and the Court itself.
On August 26, 2025, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds of justiciability, immunity, and lack of a cause of action.
MSBA’s amicus brief argued that the DOJ’s challenge against the court that issued the Standing Order will “undoubtedly compromise the adversarial process, overload judicial resources, and drastically alter attorneys’ competing professional obligations to zealously advocate on behalf of clients, to fulfill their obligations as officers
of the court, and to advance the rule of law and the administration of justice.” The brief detailed how the government’s lawsuit is the improper mechanism to challenge the Standing Order and how access to justice for individuals directly impacted by it is limited, as the lawsuit is against sitting judges rather than an appellate challenge involving the habeas petitioners.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen of Virginia, specially assigned to the case, agreed, writing that filing a direct lawsuit against the judges was not the appropriate path to challenge the order. His ruling noted that judges are immune from such lawsuits and the administration lacked legal standing to sue. The ruling did not reach the merits of the challenge (whether Chief Judge Russell had authority to issue the standing order), finding the challenge had to be brought via other procedurally established routes, like a direct appeal in an individual case.
Judge Cullen wrote that to allow the case to proceed “would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”
The MSBA thanks the attorneys, law firms, and legal organizations who signed the brief, which, MSBA President Marisa A. Trasatti noted, "demonstrates the widespread support within the Maryland legal community for judicial independence and the rule of law." She added, "The MSBA will continue to serve as the voice of the profession on core advocacy principles that affect our entire industry of over 40,000 attorneys and judges across the state."
183 attorneys and 39 law firms and organizations signed on to the brief, including:
Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
CASA, Inc.
Gallagher Evelius & Jones LLP
Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP
Gordon Feinblatt LLC
Maryland Access to Justice Commission
Miller, Miller & Canby
Public Justice Center, Inc.
Rosenberg Martin Greenberg, LLP
MSBA thanks Kramon & Graham, Illiff
Meredith Wildberger & Brennan, Miller Miller and Canby, and the following attorneys for drafting the brief:
Diane E. Feuerherd
Andrew Jay Graham
Steven M. Klepper
Lydia E. Lawless
Kathleen Howard Meredith
James P. Ulwick
LEARN MORE
Read MSBA's Amicus brief here and the Motion for Leave to File the Brief HERE.
The brief detailed how the government’s lawsuit is the improper mechanism to challenge the Standing Order and how access to justice for individuals directly impacted by it is limited, as the lawsuit is against sitting judges rather than an appellate challenge involving the habeas petitioners.
