It doesn’t require a law degree to appreciate that in a courtroom, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Facts can be in dispute and quite often so is the law, perhaps even down to the meaning of a word or two. That’s why the judiciary has an appeals process. On the federal level, if you lose in U.S. District Court, you can take your case to the the U.S. Court of Appeals. Fail to win at that level and it’s possible you may be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Donald Trump has made it clear that he doesn’t much care for this arrangement — at least not when judges issue decisions that run counter to his own political interests. And the latest example of this is Tuesday’s decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to sue all 15 U.S. District Court judges in Maryland regarding an order to pause deportations under legal challenges for 48 hours. Why was that brief pause ruled necessary? So that defendants can exercise their legal rights.

This is clearly an effort to intimidate. It screams the message: Rule against us, dear members of the federal judiciary, and we will come after you. It’s clear that criticism of the Justice Department by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis over the handling of the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case that left the father of three imprisoned in El Salvador (although he’s now in federal custody in the U.S.) left a mark. This isn’t a legal tactic so much as an obvious attempt at bullying.

Curiously, the lawsuit attempts to use a 59-year-old precedent to argue that judges can’t institute blanket policies and must decide on a case-by-case basis. But that argument seems laughable particularly given the Abrego Garcia case and the potential for gridlock given the volume of deportations. What’s the alternative? To pave the way for more such illegal grab-and-boots? To give the Trump administration free rein over deportations and to ignore constitutional rights?

And, of course, the aim is likely greater than that. Abrego Garcia was hardly the only adverse ruling for the administration in Maryland. There have been others. And while it’s true that most of the state’s District Court judges were appointed by Democratic presidents, it’s not as if they are facing routine reversal in the 4th Circuit. The need for independent judges matters. So do our fundamental rights no matter how they impact one impatient individual’s political goals or timetable.