In an unprecedented move to defend the rule of law and restore proper balance among the branches of government, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against all 15 federal district court judges in Maryland. This bold action comes in response to Chief Judge George L. Russell III’s controversial order halting deportations for 48 hours—essentially putting a stop to immigration enforcement by allowing illegal immigrants to flood the courts with habeas corpus petitions.

Calling the ruling “unlawful” and “antidemocratic,” the DOJ rightly points out that the court’s order creates a dangerous precedent, undermining the executive branch’s authority and opening the floodgates for endless judicial interference in immigration policy. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office slammed the order as a clear case of judicial overreach, warning that it threatens the very foundations of our constitutional system.

Chief Judge Russell justified his order by complaining about scheduling “difficulties” caused by the surge in habeas petitions filed after hours and on weekends. But the DOJ fired back, saying that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.” This isn’t a mere administrative inconvenience—it’s a direct assault on the executive’s constitutional power to enforce immigration laws.

Maryland’s Democratic Governor, Wes Moore, predictably reacted with outrage, accusing the DOJ of “turning our Constitution on its head” and trying to “intimidate judges.” But this reaction only underscores how out of touch many Democrats are with the fundamental principle of separation of powers. The judiciary does not get to rewrite the law or hamstring the president’s lawful authority under the guise of “judicial independence.”

Politico’s Kyle Chaney noted how rare this legal action is, tweeting, “Never seen this before — the Justice Department is suing … the entire federal district court bench in Maryland over its standing order requiring an automatic two-day stay in habeas cases.” Indeed, this lawsuit sets a powerful example: when courts go beyond their role and try to legislate from the bench, the executive branch must push back.

The DOJ’s official press release made it clear that the Maryland court’s “standing order” forces court clerks to automatically issue injunctions blocking federal immigration enforcement. This reckless policy ignores procedural and substantive legal standards, defies congressional intent, and violates Supreme Court precedent.

Attorney General Bondi emphasized the stakes: “President Trump’s executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda. The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand.”

The DOJ also highlighted a disturbing trend: district courts nationwide have issued more nationwide injunctions in the first 100 days of this administration than in the entire previous century combined. Maryland’s automatic injunction order is yet another flagrant example of courts attempting to usurp the executive branch’s lawful role in immigration enforcement.

In standing up to judicial activism, the Trump DOJ is defending the separation of powers, protecting America’s borders, and affirming the will of the voters. This lawsuit is a historic and necessary step toward restoring respect for the Constitution and ensuring that no rogue judge is allowed to cripple our nation’s immigration laws. The fight to secure America’s sovereignty is on—and the Justice Department is not backing down.