In a striking assertion that has ignited a new wave of controversy, former President Donald Trump has accused Democrats of engaging in 'judge-shopping'—a calculated legal ploy aimed at undermining his administration's policy initiatives. Trump's second term has been marked by a series of legal challenges, with certain cases being assigned to judges perceived as having left-leaning biases. One such judge, James Boasberg, has been at the center of these contentious legal battles.
The term 'judge-shopping' refers to the practice of filing lawsuits in jurisdictions where the ideological leanings of judges are expected to favor the filer's position. This tactic, critics argue, can significantly increase the chances of a desired legal outcome. Trump, in a recent interview for the book "Breaking the Law," stated, "judge-shopping is rampant at levels never seen before. You know the outcome of a case as soon as the judge is picked." He further claimed, "the radical left is using this, their final weapon, to take down America."
The concept of judge-shopping is straightforward: attorneys strategically maneuver cases into courts that are likely to yield predictable verdicts based on the composition of the bench. This can be particularly effective in single-judge districts or in multi-judge courts with a known ideological tilt, such as the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The federal venue rules under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 provide latitude for most cases against the government to be filed in D.C., thus making it a hub for politically charged legal disputes.
The practice has been credited to attorney Marc Elias by Breitbart News Senior Contributor Peter Schweizer. Elias, associated with significant Democratic Party litigation efforts, is said to have utilized judge-shopping to influence the 2008 Minnesota Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. The contentious recount of this race, which lasted six months and resulted in Franken's narrow victory, has been cited as a turning point that gave Democrats a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate, facilitating the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Federal courts employ varying methods for case assignments. While many aim for randomness, others, particularly smaller districts, enable a higher predictability of outcomes. Attorneys may also file multiple similar cases across jurisdictions, hoping to secure at least one favorable ruling. This was observed during Trump's first term when attempts to end birthright citizenship were met with injunctions from federal judges in Democratic strongholds, effectively stalling the policy.
Moreover, attorneys might manipulate timing to increase the likelihood of a case being assigned to a specific judge. An instance of this was highlighted when Judge Boasberg was reportedly on hand early on a Saturday morning to accept a filing, despite not being scheduled to work, as indicated by a tweet from journalist Julie Kelly.
The cumulative effect of these tactics has raised serious concerns about the impartiality of the judiciary. Critics argue that by controlling case assignments, politically motivated attorneys can manipulate the legal system to achieve outcomes that align with partisan objectives. Tweets from figures like Nas underscore the tension between democratic governance and what some view as judicial overreach.
