BALTIMORE — Whether you're for it or against it, it seems everyone can at least agree on one thing.
"This is a very unusual suit. I've never seen anything quite like it before, but then again, I've never seen a rule like this before."
Watch as experts break down the lawsuit
The rule that constitutional law expert Josh Blackman is referring to was issued here in Maryland at the end of May by Chief District Judge George Russell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. And it's that rule over which the Trump administration is now suing every single federal judge in our state.
Chief Judge Russell's standing order automatically blocks the immediate deportations of illegal immigrants in Maryland so long as they file a petition in court to challenge their removal. The removal would be blocked for two business days, unless the presiding judge extended it.
Professor Mark Graber from the University of Maryland Law School says it was a novel order, in response to a novel circumstance: "The Trump administration was attempting to seize people and get them out of jurisdictions and out of the United States before there could be any judicial hearing on whether in fact they were subject to deportation."
"So this was a rule trying to get around this. The problem is, I don't think you can do that. I think you have to go through certain processes," Blackman said. "I think this order is just kind of reactionary. It's saying, well, Trump's doing this, we have to stop him. This would never be done for any other president, and I think it shouldn't be done for this one."
In many Democrats' view, the order was justified as a way to stop a practice they didn't like. In many Republicans' view, the subsequent lawsuit filed by the Trump administration was justified as a way to stop an order they didn't like.
"Trump causes judges to overreact and judges cause Trump to overreact. It's this awful vicious cycle," Blackman told WMAR-2 News.
Professor Graber bets the original order blocking deportations wouldn't survive Supreme Court review. But he says the conventional way of disagreeing with a judge's order is to appeal to a higher court, not sue all of the judges.
"I think this is just showboating, that the judge is going to say, did you go to the first year of law school and learn, if you don't like a judicial order, you appeal?" Graber said.
Blackman thinks this was the best option the Trump administration had if it wanted to fight the order, and carry out his policy agenda.
"I think they had to do this to try to knock down the entire policy. DOJ could have perhaps sued piecemeal that it's one at a time every time this order is entered, challenge it, but there are, you know, about a dozen judges in this court and every single one of them would have to litigate this separately."
What makes this lawsuit especially unusual is that all of the players who would normally be tasked with presiding over or litigating the case are the ones involved in the lawsuit itself.
The judges likely won't be expected to make a ruling about themselves, so the case will probably be transferred to another court. And the Department of Justice would typically represent federal judges who get sued, but the DOJ is the one doing the suing in this case.
"I think that judges will have to get outside counsel, and it's not clear who's paying for that. The government's not paying for it, so you have to get done pro bono, which creates a whole sort of risks."
It's unclear what will happen next. But it is clear Maryland will remain at the center of the debates surrounding deportations, and the separation of powers between the White House and the judiciary.
