Suing the Judges

The Judicial Actions That Prompted the Executive’s Move

To understand why the Trump administration took the extraordinary step of suing Maryland’s federal bench, one must look at the judicial behavior that it described as “overreach.” According to administration officials, judges in the state had engaged in a pattern of:

1. Issuing sweeping injunctions that blocked federal policies nationwide, even though their authority normally extends only to cases within their jurisdiction.

2. Framing rulings in overtly political terms, at times appearing less like neutral interpreters of the law and more like partisan actors.

3. Repeatedly halting executive actions on immigration, environmental regulation, and administrative rule-making, often before cases had fully developed through the appellate process.

From the administration’s perspective, these practices blurred the line between judging and legislating. When unelected judges extend their reach beyond the specific disputes before them and effectively dictate national policy, the executive argues, they undermine the ability of the elected branches to govern.

This frustration boiled over into the ill-fated lawsuit against the Maryland bench. While the court found the lawsuit improper, it is important to acknowledge that it grew out of genuine disputes over how far judges can go in restraining executive authority.

Why Executive Retaliation Against the Judiciary Is the Wrong Answer to Judicial Overreach

In an extraordinary ruling, U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen threw out a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration against Maryland’s entire federal bench, condemning the case as “potentially calamitous.” Cullen, a Trump appointee, went further, chastising the White House for its repeated public attacks on judges as “rogue,” “crooked,” and “unhinged.”

The episode highlights two truths that sit in tension:

1. The judiciary has, at times, overstepped its constitutional bounds, frustrating the ability of elected officials to govern.

2. The executive branch must nevertheless respond through proper constitutional channels, not by attempting to turn the judiciary into a political opponent to be sued.

Understanding why requires looking at past examples of judicial overreach, how they should have been addressed, and how the Trump administration’s actions both reflect real grievances and yet failed the constitutional test of restraint.

Judicial Overreach in American History

1. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

In one of the most infamous decisions in U.S. history, the Supreme Court declared that African Americans could not be citizens and that Congress lacked the power to ban slavery in the territories. This ruling was not mere interpretation of law; it attempted to dictate national policy on slavery and override Congress’s legislative authority.

Proper Remedy:
The response should have been constitutional and political correction. Abraham Lincoln, while president, treated the decision as binding on the parties to the case but rejected it as a national policy precedent. He used the political process to push for legislative and constitutional change, culminating in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

Contrast:
Instead of suing the Court or delegitimizing judges wholesale, Lincoln respected the judiciary’s role while also refusing to let a deeply flawed ruling become binding policy for the entire nation.

2. Roe v. Wade (1973)

Regardless of one’s position on abortion, many legal scholars (including supporters of abortion rights) argued that the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade went beyond interpretation. By creating a trimester framework and striking down numerous state laws, the Court engaged in policy-making more akin to a legislature than a court.

Proper Remedy:
The legitimate path would have been for Congress to clarify national policy or for states to respond through legislation within constitutional bounds. Alternatively, constitutional amendment could have resolved the question more durably.

Contrast:
While presidents have criticized Roe, none attempted to sue the judiciary itself. Instead, executives influenced judicial appointments to gradually shift constitutional interpretation.

3. Nationwide Injunctions by Lower Courts (Modern Era)

In recent decades, district judges have increasingly issued nationwide injunctions blocking executive policies, from immigration restrictions to environmental regulations. These rulings go beyond settling the disputes of the parties before the court and instead function as sweeping national policy decisions.

Proper Remedy:
The executive should challenge such injunctions through the appellate process, seeking review from circuit courts and ultimately the Supreme Court. Congress could also legislate to clarify the scope of judicial authority over injunctions.

Contrast:
The Trump administration’s lawsuit against Maryland’s federal bench was a broadside attack that bypassed appeals and sought to delegitimize the judiciary wholesale. This step, rather than correcting overreach, risked collapsing constitutional boundaries.

The Executive’s Wrong Turn

The Trump administration had legitimate grievances. Judges in Maryland and elsewhere had issued broad injunctions halting executive actions before they had moved through the normal appellate process. This was frustrating for a president elected to carry out a specific policy agenda.

But by filing a lawsuit against the entire federal bench in one state, the administration crossed a constitutional line. Rather than addressing specific rulings through appeals or legislative clarification, it treated the judiciary itself as a political opponent to be punished.

This approach carried several dangers:

• Delegitimization of Judicial Independence: Judges must be free to rule without fear of executive retaliation.

• Undermining Constitutional Norms: If presidents could sue courts, the separation of powers would collapse into political warfare.

• Setting a Precedent for Escalation: Future administrations might escalate by targeting courts wholesale rather than pursuing lawful remedies.

What the Executive Should Have Done

Instead of pursuing the Maryland lawsuit, the administration had constitutional avenues available:

1. Appeals Process – Challenge rulings through the appellate courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.

2. Legislative Engagement – Work with Congress to limit the scope of lower-court injunctions or clarify statutory authority.

3. Judicial Appointments – Nominate judges committed to judicial restraint, shaping the judiciary over time.

4. Public Accountability – Criticize rulings, yes, but do so in ways that preserve institutional legitimacy rather than smear entire benches.

Had the administration chosen these paths, it would have strengthened its case against judicial overreach while preserving constitutional norms.

The Key Contrast

• Historical Examples: Executives like Lincoln and others pushed back against judicial overreach through politics, legislation, appeals, and constitutional amendments.

• Trump Administration’s Approach: Suing the judiciary as an institution bypassed lawful remedies and risked destabilizing the balance of power.

Two Wrongs, Not Right

Judicial overreach is real, and history provides examples where courts have stepped beyond their constitutional role. But the American system provides remedies—appeals, legislation, amendments, and appointments—not institutional retaliation.

The Trump administration’s lawsuit against Maryland’s federal bench reflected legitimate frustration but chose the wrong tool. Instead of correcting judicial excess, it undermined the very separation of powers that makes correction possible.

The lesson is clear: checks and balances require patience, process, and constitutional fidelity. When the executive tries to short-circuit those mechanisms, it risks not only its own credibility but the stability of the republic itself.