How ‘judge shopping’ shapes legal battles over Donald Trump’s federal policies

The legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s early actions have sparked a wave of lawsuits brought by federal workers and advocacy groups. These cases have found their way into courts overseen by sympathetic judges, leading to a strategic approach known as forum or “judge shopping.” This tactic involves selecting a specific district court and appeals court with a particular political makeup to increase the chances of a favorable outcome.

While the Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation, it only hears a small fraction of cases each year. In contrast, the 13 U.S. appeals courts handle a much larger volume of cases, making them crucial in shaping legal decisions on pressing issues. The practice of judge shopping has become more prevalent since Congress lifted the requirement for plaintiffs to establish a local connection to the district where they file their lawsuit over 30 years ago.

President Trump’s exercise of Article II power to enforce federal laws has been met with legal challenges seeking to block his executive orders. Plaintiffs have strategically filed cases in districts with sympathetic judges, such as the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit, known for its liberal decisions. These courts have played a significant role in shaping the outcome of key legal battles, potentially leading to Supreme Court consideration.

Efforts to reform the system of judge shopping have gained traction in recent years, with calls for random case assignment in federal courts to prevent forum shopping. Organizations like the Article III Project are working with the Senate Judiciary Committee to draft legislation that would require a three-judge panel randomly assigned from across the country to hear cases. The U.S. Judicial Conference has also issued guidance to promote impartiality in court proceedings and restore public trust in the judiciary.

Despite these efforts, the practice of judge shopping persists, with both Republican and Democratic plaintiffs utilizing this strategy to influence federal policy through legal precedent. The ongoing battle over judge shopping highlights the importance of maintaining a fair and impartial judicial system to uphold the rule of law.