The Trump administration has taken a bold stand against what it calls judicial activism, sparking intrigue in the ongoing battle over immigration policy. A groundbreaking lawsuit filed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promises to reshape the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, leaving conservatives rallying behind the move.

Summary

• Trump’s DHS sues all 15 Maryland federal judges over a policy automatically pausing immigration cases.
• The lawsuit claims the court’s standing order is unlawful, accusing judges of overstepping their authority.
• The policy temporarily blocks deportations for immigrants filing habeas corpus petitions, which DHS calls judicial overreach.
• The administration seeks to have the case heard by an out-of-state judge to ensure impartiality.

A Stand Against Judicial Overreach

The DHS has filed a historic lawsuit against the entire bench of Maryland’s federal district court, challenging a May 2025 standing order that automatically halts immigration cases. 

This policy, which pauses deportations for two business days when immigrants file habeas corpus petitions, is seen by conservatives as a blatant attempt to undermine the administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. 

The lawsuit, filed in Baltimore, argues that the order violates Supreme Court precedent and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

“A sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law,” DHS attorneys wrote in their filing. “Nor does their status within the judicial branch.”

Restoring Executive Authority

The Trump administration contends that the Maryland court’s policy is an “egregious example of judicial overreach,” infringing on the White House’s constitutional power to enforce immigration laws. 

The order, issued under Chief Judge George L. Russell III, cites a surge in habeas petitions from detained immigrants challenging their deportation or detention. Conservatives view this as a tactic to delay lawful removals, clogging the system and weakening border security.

“This lawsuit involves yet another regrettable example of the unlawful use of equitable powers to restrain the executive,” Justice Department lawyers stated.

A Call for Impartiality

To ensure a fair hearing, the DHS has requested that Maryland’s judges recuse themselves, proposing an out-of-state federal judge oversee the case. This move underscores the administration’s distrust of a bench perceived as hostile to its agenda. Supporters argue this lawsuit is a necessary step to curb activist judges who issue blanket injunctions, a trend conservatives have long criticized.

“President Trump is standing up for the rule of law,” said conservative commentator Laura Ingraham on Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle. “These judges can’t just rewrite immigration policy from the bench.”

Looking Ahead

As the legal battle unfolds, conservatives are hopeful this lawsuit will set a precedent, limiting judicial interference in executive actions. With the administration vowing to appeal any unfavorable rulings, the fight over immigration enforcement remains a rallying cry for those prioritizing border security and constitutional balance.