Donald Trump has lost in court - AGAIN. This time he got the equivalent of an MMA slapdown, but in writing. A federal judge threw out an entire lawsuit that the Trump administration filed against the ENTIRE FEDERAL BENCH IN MARYLAND because he didn't like that they were slowing down his probably, maybe, definitely illegal deportation of undocumented immigrants without due process. And most judges really like due process.

Where did this lawsuit originate, you may ask? I mean, it's a valid question. Trump and his personal DOJ are suing pretty much everyone, all over the country, for saying or doing anything that the White House doesn't like.

In this case, Trump filed a lawsuit because he was very sad about a standing order that was put in place in Maryland that said "immigrants who sought to contest their removal from the country in the Maryland federal courts by filing what is known as a habeas petition would automatically be granted a two-day reprieve from being expelled."

Two days is no big deal, right? WRONG! Not when you have ICE Barbie and her goons ready to shackle and relocate undocumented immigrants to welcoming countries, such as Uganda and El Salvador. Countries that are known for the strict adherence to laws protecting citizens and visitors and no human rights violations.

The New York Times is reporting that the 39-page ruling from Judge Cullen was "scathing." It called the Trump lawsuit “novel and potentially calamitous" and said that the Trump administration had "simpler — and clearly more legal — ways to contest the standing order" that didn't involve bring a lawsuit against all 15 federal judges in Maryland.

Ironically, Judge Cullen was appointed by President Trump, so he can't be called a "radical left judge." And because the lawsuit was brought against the entire Maryland federal bench, they all had to recuse themselves. So Judge Cullen came over from his courthouse in Virginia to preside over the case!

But even more shocking is the critical words he had for Trump and his aides for "repeatedly attacked other judges who have dared to rule against the White House in a flurry of cases challenging aspects of its political agenda."

Cullen wrote:

“Over the past several months, principal officers of the executive (and their spokespersons) have described federal district judges across the country as ‘left-wing,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘activists,’ ‘radical,’ ‘politically minded,’ ‘rogue,’ ‘unhinged,’ ‘outrageous, overzealous, [and] unconstitutional, [c]rooked,’ and worse.

Although some tension between the coordinate branches of government is a hallmark of our constitutional system, this concerted effort by the executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it is both unprecedented and unfortunate."

He did acknowledge that the arguments the Trump DOG made might have gotten ' “traction” if the administration had made them “in the proper forum.” 'For example, they could have "appealed any individual cases where the standing order had actually slowed down an immigrant’s removal or could have contested the underlying validity of the blanket rule in front of the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit, which has the authority to rescind or modify such measures." Instead, they “chose a different, and more confrontational, path.”

So, “the executive decided to sue, and in a big way.”

When dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Cullen agreed with nearly every single argument put forth by the defendants, the federal judges. He found that they were "immune from being sued and that the administration’s suit essentially violated the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution by having the executive branch attempt legal action against the judicial branch."

He wrote: “Regrettably, this lawsuit effectively pits two of those branches against one another. But it is important to remember that, at bottom, all branches — and the public officials who serve in them — share the same core sovereign interest: to support and defend the Constitution.”

Trump's DOJ is taking a break from hiding and editing the Epstein documents to file a notice that they plan to appeal the ruling.