The Founding Fathers designed the United States system of government with checks and balances. So it's natural that, at times, different branches would find themselves at odds with one another. After all, each is expected to keep the others from becoming too powerful. The current battle between the Trump administration's executive branch and federal district court judges has already gotten ugly, and things may get worse.
President Donald Trump has been extremely vocal about his frustration over the courts honoring habeas corpus rights that interfere with his immigration and deportation agendas. Already facing possible contempt of court charges for defying judicial orders and ignoring court deadlines, Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken things one step further.
On June 24, 2025, the DOJ took unprecedented (and perhaps never-before-considered) legal action by filing a lawsuit against all 15 of Maryland's federal judges.
The DOJ's claim disputes a standing order that requires a two-day freeze on deportation proceedings in cases where a detainee has filed a habeas corpus petition. That order was issued by Chief District Judge George Russell III on May 21.
While Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that the injunction is a deliberate overreach of judicial power intended to derail President Trump's deportation policies, others pointed to the Constitution and the administration's repeated refusals to follow court-issued orders as justification.
What exactly is going on?
We're Totally Complying, Really, We Swear
When the Trump administration began revoking visas and other protections for noncitizens before loading them on planes and sending them to other countries, advocates immediately began filing lawsuits to stop what they considered to be unconstitutional acts by agencies in the executive branch. They argue that by declaring the deportees guilty of crimes without adjudication, their habeas corpus rights were being violated.
In numerous instances, federal agencies either ignored or avoided court orders that demanded the cessation of deportation flights and the return of people removed from the U.S. without having their day in court.
To rein in what legal scholars are calling the "legalistic noncompliance" of both federal and U.S. Supreme Court rulings, Judge Russell III's standing order on May 21 placed a freeze on any removal case tied to a writ of habeas corpus in a Maryland federal courtroom.
Automatic injunctions like the one Judge Russell III issued have been issued in several court districts. In this instance, it would require that a judge be assigned to and examine any case with a habeas corpus petition within two days, with all deportation efforts frozen during that time.
President Trump and the DOJ, upset with the order and perhaps feeling they wouldn't get a fair shake with any federal judge in Maryland, decided to come in with legal guns blazing.
We Don't Want Them. Any of Them.
The DOJ fired a one-two punch combination with its filings. While petitioning to have the standing order struck down, it also sought to have all 15 members of the Maryland U.S. District Court blocked from presiding over the case.
The latter isn't all that surprising, since someone who is a party to a lawsuit generally cannot preside over it. But filing suit against all 15 judges, rather than only Judge Russell III, was likely a strategic move. It's also an unusual one — injunctions are usually just appealed to a higher court.
The motion asked for the case to be randomly transferred to a different Fourth Circuit judge. Given the conservative leanings of justices in the other states that comprise the Fourth Circuit, that would likely be to their advantage.
While the DOJ has pointed out the high number of injunctions issued against President Trump, some have argued that it's the result of the sheer volume of unconstitutional orders. The administration has lost well over 90% of its cases defending Trump orders in federal courts, perhaps making this bold legal move inevitable.
It's not a phrase many would have considered likely to be overused, but once again, a legal challenge by this administration has ventured into uncharted waters and may well set a significant legal precedent. To be fair, it's understandable if some find it difficult to keep up.
Related Resources:
- What Is the Unitary Executive Theory? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Learning Judicial Precedent (FindLaw for Law Students)
- Separation of Powers Under the US Constitution (FindLaw's U.S. Constitution)
