Cruz asks the Judicial Conference to review judge's order to determine if it complies with Federal Law
Texas Insider Report WASHINGTON, D.C. – After sending a letter earlier this week urging the Judicial Conference of the United States to immediately review a standing order in Maryland that blocks the federal government from deporting illegal aliens, today Senator Ted Cruz, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight & Federal Rights, delivered some stronly-worded remarks at a Senate Judiciary hearing examining how procedural tools can enable judicial overreach that threaten the separation of powers and hinder lawful executive enforcement.
“This hearing is a joint undertaking because our country is facing a constitutional crisis – a full-blown judicial assault on the separation of powers that strikes at the very foundation of the Republic.
“What we're witnessing is the rise of judicial lawfare from the bench," said Cruz.
"One unelected district judge sitting in a courtroom in San Francisco, Boston, or Baltimore can now issue a nationwide injunction that ties the hands of the President of the United States for all 330 million Americans.
"That's not law, that's judicial tyranny," the senator extolled.
Highlights and excerpts from the letter read as follows:
“As originally issued, the standing order automatically enjoined the U.S. Government from removing or altering the legal status of any alien detainee who files a habeas petition in that district – regardless of the petitioner’s physical location.
"The order is self-executing, requires no individualized judicial finding, and remains in effect for a minimum of two business days following the filing of each petition. In form and effect, it operates as a procedural rule of general applicability governing all future habeas filings.
“Moreover, the fact that the order was initially drafted with nationwide effect underscores the structural risks it poses.
"That a single district court judge assumed power to delay removals of detainees located anywhere in the country—without a record, hearing, or jurisdictional tether—raises substantial questions about Article III limits and judicial rulemaking authority.
“The real-world consequences are significant.
"Courts are increasingly asked to intervene in removal proceedings through emergency habeas petitions. One high-profile example is Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was deported to El Salvador in March 2025 despite a court order prohibiting his removal to that country.
"That case triggered interagency conflict, litigation in multiple courts, and an ongoing judicial inquiry. But Mr. Abrego Garcia is only one among many; the Department of Homeland Security is now executing a broad removal campaign under renewed executive directives, and filings are accelerating.”
"The order is self-executing, requires no individualized judicial finding, and remains in effect for a minimum of two business days following the filing of each petition. In form and effect, it operates as a procedural rule of general applicability governing all future habeas filings.“Moreover, the fact that the order was initially drafted with nationwide effect underscores the structural risks it poses.
"That a single district court judge assumed power to delay removals of detainees located anywhere in the country—without a record, hearing, or jurisdictional tether—raises substantial questions about Article III limits and judicial rulemaking authority.
“The real-world consequences are significant.
"Courts are increasingly asked to intervene in removal proceedings through emergency habeas petitions. One high-profile example is Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was deported to El Salvador in March 2025 despite a court order prohibiting his removal to that country.
"That case triggered interagency conflict, litigation in multiple courts, and an ongoing judicial inquiry. But Mr. Abrego Garcia is only one among many; the Department of Homeland Security is now executing a broad removal campaign under renewed executive directives, and filings are accelerating.”
