行政分支诉司法分支：特朗普政府请求上诉法院恢复对Maryland全体联邦法官的诉讼，合议庭当庭质疑
据路透社10月30日报道，特朗普政府当天请求联邦上诉法院允许其继续推进一宗不寻常的诉讼：起诉 Maryland 州全体联邦法官，挑战一项拖慢其快速遣返移民被拘留者的法院命令。
司法部律师 Sarah Welch 在位于 Virginia 州 Richmond 的第四巡回上诉法院三法官合议庭前陈词，称一名法官不当驳回了这宗诉讼。Welch 表示，行政与司法分支之间的这场争议或许独一无二，但政府有权提起此类案件以保护其主权利益。
Welch 说，这项常设令与地方法规实际上禁止联邦政府执行移民执法，政府因此受到损害。
这场争议源于2025年 Maryland 联邦地区法院通过的一项常设令：凡在 Maryland 新提出挑战其拘留的诉讼的移民，其遣返自动暂缓两个工作日。该命令由首席联邦地区法官 George Russell 签署，理由是近期涌入大量涉及据称面临不当与迫近遣返的外国被拘留者的人身保护令申请。
司法部没有在单个移民案件中挑战该命令，而是于2025年6月起诉该州全体联邦法官，称这项政策非法干预了行政分支在移民执法上的权力。
由于 Maryland 的法官全体被诉，此案被指派给 Trump 任命的西 Virginia 西区联邦地区法官 Thomas Cullen 审理。Cullen 驳回了此案，称其是针对那些对特朗普政策作出不利裁决的法官所发起的、旨在抹黑与贬损法官的更广泛行动的一部分，并称这一做法前所未有且不幸。
在10月30日的庭审中，多名法官质疑政府是否有权对法官提起此类案件，以及其对最高法院1895年 In re Debs 判例的援引是否过宽，该判例被政府用来主张其可为保护联邦利益寻求禁令救济。
巡回法官 Stephanie Thacker 对 Welch 说，这宗案件针对的是整个法院，是行政分支对司法分支，她看不到政府立场有何限制原则。Thacker 由民主党总统奥巴马任命。
受联邦法官们委托出庭的知名上诉律师 Paul Clement 则请求上诉法院维持驳回裁定，并以此发出信号，防止将来再出现类似案件。Clement 说，以美国的名义起诉一整个司法区，是对三权分立的严重威胁，且存在多重门槛缺陷。
合议庭中唯一的共和党任命法官、由 Trump 任命的巡回法官 Marvin Quattlebaum 反驳称，前所未有并不意味着就是错的。但他同时对 Welch 表示，Debs 判例项下的许多历史案件针对的是私人公司或个人，且传统上与财产利益相关，若果真如此，本案似乎可能超出该范围。
此案为 United States v. Russell，第四巡回上诉法院案号 25-2004。政府方律师为司法部 Sarah Welch，法官方律师为 Clement & Murphy 律所的 Paul Clement。
Executive Branch Versus Judicial Branch: Trump Administration Asks Appeals Court to Revive Its Lawsuit Against Every Federal Judge in Maryland
President Donald Trump's administration on Friday, October 30, urged a federal appeals court to allow it to pursue an unusual lawsuit against every federal judge in Maryland, challenging a court order slowing its efforts to rapidly deport immigration detainees, Reuters reported.
U.S. Department of Justice attorney Sarah Welch told a three-judge panel of the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a judge improperly threw out the lawsuit. Welch said that while the dispute between the executive and judicial branches may be unique, the government has authority to bring such a case to protect its sovereign interests.
'The injury is that the standing order, the local rule, enjoins the federal government from executing immigration enforcement,' Welch said.
The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in June 2025 after the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland adopted a standing order automatically blocking for two business days the removal of migrants in Maryland who filed new lawsuits challenging their detention.
The order, signed by Chief U.S. District Judge George Russell, cited a recent influx of habeas petitions concerning alien detainees purportedly subject to improper and imminent removal from the United States. A habeas petition is a legal action challenging the legality of a person's detention.
Rather than challenge the order in an individual immigration case, the Justice Department sued every federal judge in Maryland, arguing the policy unlawfully interfered with the executive branch's authority over immigration enforcement.
Because every Maryland judge was sued, the case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, a Trump appointee in the Western District of Virginia. He tossed the case, which he said was part of an unprecedented and unfortunate broader campaign to smear and impugn judges who rule against Trump's policies.
At Friday's argument, several judges questioned whether the government was allowed to pursue such a case against the judges and if it was overstating the reach of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1895 decision in In re Debs, which the administration says allows it to seek injunctive relief to protect federal interests.
'This is against an entire court,' U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanie Thacker, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, told Welch. 'This is the executive branch versus the judicial branch. I don't see a limiting principle to your position.'
Paul Clement, a prominent appellate advocate retained to represent the federal judges, urged the appeals court to send a message by upholding that ruling and preventing a future case like it from being filed. 'The executive's extraordinary effort here to sue an entire judicial district in the name of the United States is a grave threat to the separation of powers that suffered multiple threshold defects,' Clement said.
U.S. Circuit Judge Marvin Quattlebaum pushed back, saying just because it is unprecedented does not mean it is wrong. But Quattlebaum, a Trump appointee and the only Republican appointee on Friday's panel, told Welch that many of the historical examples of cases pursued under the Debs ruling involved private companies or individuals and were traditionally tied to property interests, and that if that is true, this case seems perhaps outside of that.
The case is United States v. Russell, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-2004. For the United States: Sarah Welch of the U.S. Department of Justice. For the Maryland judges: Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy.
Source: Reuters, October 30, court report
来源：GSM·美国（原文链接）
图片来源：图：位于 Washington 的美国司法部大楼。GSM联邦机构固定图库照片，摄影 APK，CC BY 4.0，来源 Wikimedia Commons。 / Photo: U.S. Department of Justice headquarters in Washington. GSM federal agency library photo by APK, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
