August 28, 2025

I have been a lawyer for more than 30 years, and in all that time I have never seen anyone sue a federal judge for issuing a procedural order. That is, until Donald Trump’s Department of Justice sued the entire federal bench — all 15 judges — in Maryland.

It began earlier this year. After Trump initiated his mass deportations, federal courts were flooded with emergency petitions to halt imminent removals. In normal circumstances, when a migrant files an emergency motion to prevent deportation, the government pauses its actions to allow the judicial process to unfold.

However, this spring, we watched in horror as the Trump administration did the opposite. Rather than pausing deportations, it accelerated them.

In one infamous case, the DOJ appeared to mislead a federal judge in Washington, D.C., about the status of Venezuelans being flown to El Salvador. After Judge Boasberg ordered two planes of Venezuelans to turn around and return to the United States, the administration allowed the planes to continue on their original course. In an even greater show of defiance, the government then sent a third plane to El Salvador.

To prevent such gamesmanship, the chief judge of the Maryland federal court issued a standing order requiring a two-day pause before the Trump administration could remove immigrants in the state who were seeking judicial review of their detention.

The purpose was simple: to give judges 48 hours to review legal filings and decide on an appropriate course of action. Such a brief delay could not reasonably be said to impair the government’s ability to carry out lawful deportations.

Trump, however, was not pleased.

Ordinarily, when the DOJ disagrees with a court order, it either asks the court to reconsider or files an appeal. In this instance, the DOJ did neither. In an unprecedented move, the administration sued all fifteen federal judges in Maryland.

Suing judges over rulings you dislike is not a legitimate option. If I — or any lawyer in private practice — were to sue even a single judge personally for an order we believed was wrong, we would be sanctioned, referred for bar disciplinary proceedings and possibly even held in contempt.

For that reason, when this lawsuit was filed, I argued it should be summarily dismissed and that the lawyers responsible should face sanctions. Instead, the case was assigned to a district court judge from outside the state.

Earlier this week, that judge — Thomas T. Cullen, a Trump appointee — issued a scathing 39-page decision dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety. Judge Cullen condemned the DOJ’s effort as a “concerted effort by the Executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it.”

While Judge Cullen deserves credit for his courage and principles, it is worth asking why Trump felt emboldened enough to bring such a case — and worse, why he and DOJ lawyers believe it appropriate to appeal the decision.

One answer is that Trump thrives on pushing boundaries and testing limits. Even if he does not prevail, he benefits by warping the public’s sense of right and wrong to his advantage. That is a dangerous path — one that leads toward dictatorship.

Another reason is that the judiciary has not always pushed back against Trump as firmly as it should. When Judge Boasberg attempted to hold Trump officials in contempt for violating his order, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked him. In other cases, the Supreme Court has signaled that it will not defend trial judges who take strong stands against the administration’s abuse of power and disregard for judicial authority.

As Trump continues his power grab, we are forced to learn, in real time, how to respond. But too often the judiciary’s reactions have been too measured, too cautious — too judicious — to deter future lawlessness.

Trump may be weak, but he fancies himself a strongman. He respects dictators and praises their brutality. For institutions charged with defending democracy, now is not the time for respectable half-measures that can be mistaken for weakness. It is time for bold, decisive action. Our democracy and the rule of law depend on it.