How ‘judge shopping’ is shaping the legal fights against President Trump’s agenda in federal court

The Rise of Legal Challenges Against President Trump’s Actions

The early days of President Donald Trump’s administration have been marked by a flood of legal challenges, primarily brought by federal workers and advocacy groups. These lawsuits have found their way into federal courts, many of which are presided over by judges who are sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ causes. This strategy of filing cases in specific courts with politically aligned judges is a well-known tactic often referred to as "forum shopping" or "judge shopping." While this practice is not new and has been employed by both Democrats and Republicans, it has gained significant attention in recent years due to the high-stakes nature of the cases involving Trump’s policies.

The Strategy Behind Forum Shopping

Forum shopping is a legal strategy where plaintiffs deliberately choose to file their cases in specific courts or districts that are more likely to rule in their favor. This approach is rooted in the understanding that the U.S. Court of Appeals, which handles over 50,000 cases annually, often serves as the final arbiter of key legal issues, as the Supreme Court only hears a fraction of these cases each year. Historically, plaintiffs were required to establish a geographic connection to the district where they filed their lawsuits, but this requirement was largely lifted by Congress over 30 years ago, making it easier for plaintiffs to choose their court strategically.

The Role of the U.S. Appeals Courts

The U.S. Court of Appeals plays a crucial role in shaping the legal landscape, as it is the court of last resort for most cases. With 13 circuits across the country, each with its own political makeup, plaintiffs often seek out circuits that align with their ideological views. For instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, known for its liberal-leaning decisions, has been a popular venue for challenges to Trump’s policies. Similarly, the Fifth Circuit, which has a majority of Republican-appointed judges, has been a favorite for conservative plaintiffs. By targeting specific circuits, plaintiffs aim to increase their chances of securing favorable rulings.

Forum Shopping in Action: Examples and Outcomes

Recent examples of forum shopping include the legal challenges to Trump’s executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship. Plaintiffs filed three separate lawsuits in the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is dominated by Democratic-appointed judges, in an effort to block the order. Similarly, anti-abortion groups have targeted the rural Texas town of Amarillo, where the sole federal judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, is known for his anti-abortion stance. While some of these efforts have been successful in the lower courts, they often face challenges when they reach the Supreme Court. For example, Kacsmaryk’s attempt to ban the abortion pill mifepristone was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

The Push for Judicial Reforms

The practice of forum shopping has drawn criticism from judicial reform advocates, who argue that it undermines the integrity of the judicial system. Russell Wheeler, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has noted that allowing plaintiffs to handpick their judges contradicts the principle of random case assignment, which is designed to ensure impartiality. In response to these concerns, various efforts have been made to reform the system. For instance, the U.S. Judicial Conference has issued guidance encouraging courts to randomly assign high-profile cases to prevent judge shopping. Additionally, Senate Democrats have introduced legislation aimed at curbing the practice, though it has yet to gain traction in Congress.

The Broader Implications of Judge Shopping

The debate over forum shopping highlights the broader challenges facing the U.S. judicial system, including concerns about the politicization of the courts and the erosion of public trust. As President Trump continues to face legal challenges, the issue of judge shopping is likely to remain a contentious topic. Proponents of reform argue that measures such as random case assignment and three-judge panels could help restore faith in the impartiality of the courts. However, others maintain that the existing system allows for the efficient resolution of legal disputes and that calls for reform are driven by political motives. As the legal battles over Trump’s policies continue, the outcomes will not only shape the future of his administration but also the future of the U.S. judiciary itself.