Recent investigative reporting has shed light on a tactical legal pattern employed by critics of the Trump administration, a maneuver known as "forum shopping." RealClearInvestigations analyzed 350 lawsuits aimed at Trump's policies and found that a significant majority—80%—were brought before just 11 of the 91 federal district courts in the United States. These courts are characterized by a strong contingent of judges appointed by Democratic presidents, which suggests a strategic selection of venues to obtain rulings likely to impede the administration's agenda.
This investigative effort, highlighted on social media by Benjamin Weingarten, a contributing editor at RealClearInvestigations, on June 12, 2025, points to a calculated approach in the legal battles against former President Trump. The data suggests a clear preference for courts where the judicial leanings are more likely to result in decisions against Trump's initiatives. Notably, the D.C. District Court, which has dealt with 41% of these cases, has judges largely appointed by Democratic presidents, including those overseeing high-profile cases related to the January 6 events.
Supporters of this legal tactic defend it as a necessary counter to what they perceive as executive overreach by Trump. However, the prevalence of nationwide injunctions issued by these Democrat-appointed judges—enjoining policies across the entire country, not just for the parties involved—raises questions about the impartiality and balance of power within the judiciary. Almost 40 such injunctions have been made against the Trump administration, with over 80% coming from the benches of Democratic appointees.
The implications of these findings go beyond the immediate legal skirmishes. They underscore a broader concern about the politicization of the judiciary and the use of courts as battlegrounds for policy disputes. This practice has been criticized by figures across the political spectrum, including Senator Chuck Schumer, who has called for measures to prevent litigants from intentionally selecting judges likely to be favorable to their cause.
Though the Judicial Conference of the United States has issued guidance advocating for random case assignments in district courts, the guidance lacks enforceability, leading some to propose congressional action. This conversation comes as the Supreme Court prepares to review the constitutionality of nationwide injunctions, a review that could redefine the scope of judicial power in the United States.
As this debate unfolds, the strategy of forum shopping continues to be a contentious issue. With outcomes that have, thus far, often favored their objectives, left-leaning organizations and litigants seem poised to continue utilizing this approach. The consequences of such legal maneuvers are far-reaching, potentially granting an outsized influence over national governance to specific courts and judges.
This story is not just about the Trump administration but also about the integrity of the judicial system and the balance of power among the branches of government. As the nation watches, the resolution of this issue will have lasting implications for how policies are challenged and upheld in the American legal landscape.
