The Trump administration on Tuesday filed a case against all 15 federal judges in Maryland, in which the immediate exile of the migrants was blocked on an order, challenging their expulsion, reducing the fight with the federal judiciary on the executive powers of President Donald Trump.

Remarkable action bare the administration’s determination to increase the immigration enforcement as well as to increase a increasing boycott with federal judges, which have time and again separated the functions of the executive branch which they see without legitimate and legal qualifications.

“It is extraordinary,” Laori Leavenson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said about the case of the Department of Justice. “And it is increasing DOJ’s effort to challenge federal judges.”

Chief Justice George L. on this issue. There is an order signed by Russell III and was filed in May, in which the administration was immediately barred from removing the US, who files paperwork with the Maryland District Court, seeking a review of their custody. The order prevents the removal by 4 pm on the second trading day after the order is filed by the order captive corpus petition.

The administration says that the automatic stagnation on removal violates the Supreme Court’s decision and disrupts the President’s right to implement immigration laws.

The Republican administration has been closed for weeks in growing demonstrations with the federal judiciary, which is amidst legal challenges for the President’s efforts to complete the major priorities around immigration and other matters. The Department of Justice is rapidly disappointed by the rule blocking the President’s agenda, alleging that the judges are accused of improperly disrupted.

Attorney General Pamela Bandi said in a statement on Wednesday, “The Executive Authority of President Trump has been reduced to the first hours of his presidential post.” “American people chose President Trump to hold their policy agenda: This pattern of judicial overache reduces the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand up.”

A spokesman for the Maryland District Court refused to comment.

Trump has participated against adverse judicial decisions, and in a case called for impeachment of a federal judge in Washington, who ordered the planetloads of deported immigrants to visit. This made an extraordinary statement from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, who said that “impeachment is not a proper response to disagreement related to a judicial decision.”

The judges named in the trial are Paula Shinis, who illegally called Al Salvador to the exile of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The lawyers of Abrego Garcia have asked Zinis to impose a fine against the administration for contempt, arguing that it has ignored court orders for weeks

The order signed by Russell says that its purpose is to maintain the existing terms and the possible jurisdiction of the court, ensuring that immigrants petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and reach the lawyers and give the government a chance to abbreviate and present the arguments in their defense. “

In a revised order, Russell said that the court had received the influence of captive petitions after hours, “there was a hasty and disappointing hearing in obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and situation of the petitioners.”

The Trump administration has asked Maryland judges to resume themselves from the case. It wants a clerk to have a federal judge from another state.

James Sample, a Professor of a constitutional law at Hofstra University, described the lawsuit as part of the erosion of legal criteria by the administration. Generally, when parties are in favor of losing an prohibition, they appeal to the order – do not sue the court or judges, they said.

On one hand, he said, the Department of Justice has a point that prohibitory orders should be considered as extraordinary relief; It is uncommon for them to automatically give them to an entire class of cases. However, he said, this is repeatedly the administration’s own action in the ongoing prisoners to prevent them from receiving the prisoners’ writing that motivated the court to issue the order.

“The judges here did not say to put in this unbreakable position,” the sample said. “Facing incomplete options, they have made an entirely appropriate, alert option to check an executive branch marginally, determined to bypass any glimpse of the fair process.”