The New York Women’s Bar Association (NYWBA) released a statement in September 2025 condemning attacks on United States judges that the NYWBA described as efforts to undermine the rule of law throughout the nation. As part of the statement, the organization raised serious questions about the health of judicial independence in the United States should these attacks continue unopposed.

The NYWBA announcement highlighted an unprecedented case that occurred in June 2025, when the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the U.S. District Court of Maryland, its clerks, and all 15 judges following DOJ dissatisfaction with a standing order issued by the District Court. The order prohibited removal proceedings for immigrants who had filed habeas corpus petitions. Judges halted removal proceedings for just 48 hours, providing them time to review the habeas corpus petitions.

Despite the lawful order, the DOJ, acting on orders from the Executive Branch, elected not to appeal the District's order or raise the issue with the Fourth Circuit’s Judicial Council, but instead elected to sue the court and its judges. Attorney General Pamela Bondi described the standing order as undermining the President's executive authority, citing other injunctions as a "pattern of judicial overreach." The President's first 100 days in office resulted in more district court injunctions than in the 100 years between 1900 and 2000.

Despite the attorney general's framing of the District Court of Maryland's order, a federal judge quickly turned away the DOJ lawsuit, explaining that the lawsuit flew in the face of both precedent and the constitutional rule of law. Presiding over the case, U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen of Roanoke, Virginia, dismissed the DOJ's central argument, stating that the DOJ could have simply appealed specific decisions in specific cases, rather than bringing a sweeping lawsuit against the entire federal court bench in the state of Maryland.

Cullen described the conflict as a dispute between co-equal branches of government, stating that "these are not normal times" and that to permit one branch of government to sue another without cause would “offend the rule of law." In his opinion, Cullen went on to say that any other decision "would run counter to overwhelming precedent" and "depart from longstanding constitutional law."

The 37-page ruling pointed out many dangers of proceeding along such confrontational lines between government branches, at one point describing the DOJ's tactics as "novel and potentially calamitous." Judges and citizens alike must continue to uphold judicial independence, a foundational element of democratic law, in the face of such attacks. Cullen, for example, could have just as easily viewed the DOJ's maneuvers against the District Court as a threat to his position and ruled in favor of the executive branch, relieving the pause on unlawful deportations. Judicial independence is especially important when it comes to laws protecting the nation's most vulnerable and underserved communities.

Cullen was hardly alone in his opinion. Legal minds such as Mark Graber, regents professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, described the case as a stunt more than an honest attempt to reverse the district court's ruling. "An injunction against judges is a guaranteed loser," said Graber.

The NYWBA announcement, which strongly supported Cullen's ruling, concluded that attorneys throughout the United States must continue to uphold judicial independence and protect judges from illegal threats, unprecedented lawsuits, and similar forms of harassment, even those launched by their own government. Legal professionals and citizens interested in learning more about the NYWBA's position on judicial independence can visit the organization online at nywba.org.

About Dyan Gershman

Dyan Gershman is the founder of Gershman Law, PLLC, a New York City–based corporate law firm advising U.S. and international clients. Her practice focuses on corporate law, mergers and acquisitions, strategic alliances, technology and intellectual property licensing, and commercial contracts. Her background includes senior in-house roles at General Electric and Bristol-Myers Squibb, as well as private practice at Jones Day. Dyan Gershman is admitted to practice in New York and Florida and holds a juris doctor from Boston College Law School.