Attention has focused in recent weeks on how politically sensitive cases involving President Donald Trump were assigned to certain judges viewed as left-leaning.
Judge James Boasberg, described by critics as an anti-Trump activist, was assigned several cases involving the president during the early weeks of Trump’s second administration.
Reports show that Boasberg issued rulings that blocked or delayed parts of the administration’s opening policy agenda.
At the center of these case assignments is a legal tactic known as “judge-shopping.”
The practice, according to critics, allows attorneys to file lawsuits in venues where the ideological leanings of the judges are favorable to their arguments.
By strategically selecting where cases are filed, litigants can increase the likelihood of achieving a specific legal outcome.
President Trump has directly addressed the issue.
In an interview conducted as part of the research for the book “Breaking the Law,” Trump said, “judge-shopping is rampant at levels never seen before. You know the outcome of a case as soon as the judge is picked.”
He added, “And the radical left is using this, their final weapon, to take down America.”
Judge-shopping is not complex in theory. It involves politically motivated attorneys steering cases into courts where the outcome can often be predicted based on the judicial composition.
For example, single-judge districts create situations where the plaintiff knows exactly who will hear the case.
Multi-judge courts with clear ideological leanings, such as the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, also provides opportunities for venue selection.
Federal venue rules, codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1391, allow most cases against the government to be filed in D.C., making it a common destination for politically charged lawsuits.
Breitbart News Senior Contributor Peter Schweizer credits attorney Marc Elias with popularizing the practice in Democratic legal strategies.
Elias, who has long been associated with major Democratic Party litigation efforts, is said to have relied on judge-shopping in the 2008 Minnesota Senate race between Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken.
That contest remains one of the most contentious Senate races in U.S. history.
During the recount, more than a thousand previously rejected ballots were accepted after being reviewed in a specific court that Elias had targeted.
Many of those ballots had been flagged because they may have been cast by individuals with felony convictions, raising concerns about eligibility.
The recount process extended for six months, making it the longest recount in American history.
Ultimately, Franken won by a narrow margin.
A later study suggested that illegal votes by felons likely influenced the outcome.
That victory gave Democrats a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate, allowing then-President Barack Obama to pass major legislation, including the Affordable Care Act.
Elias’s legal strategy of venue-shopping played a decisive role in securing that outcome, according to Schweizer.
Court assignment procedures vary across the federal system.
Many courts randomly assign cases to judges, but others, especially smaller districts, make it easier to predict outcomes.
Larger courts with clusters of judges who share similar judicial philosophies also allow attorneys to file in ways that increase the likelihood of favorable rulings.
Another strategy involves filing multiple similar cases in different jurisdictions, with the goal of securing at least one ruling that blocks or delays a targeted policy.
Examples of this tactic appeared when Trump attempted to end birthright citizenship during his first administration. Four federal judges in different jurisdictions—Boston, New Hampshire, Seattle, and Maryland—issued injunctions, per Breitbart News.
All four jurisdictions are in regions considered Democratic strongholds, and all four rulings aligned against the administration’s position.
Attorneys may also pay close attention to timing.
By filing at a specific moment, they can increase the chance that a particular judge is available to take the case.
In the Alien Enemies Act case, Judge Boasberg was reportedly available early on a Saturday morning to accept the filing, though records indicated he was not scheduled to be present that weekend.
Transcripts suggest Boasberg may have been tipped off that the case was coming, raising further questions about how case assignments occur.
Critics say that the cumulative effect of these practices undermines the impartiality of the judiciary.
By engineering case assignments, politically motivated attorneys are seen as manipulating the system to achieve outcomes that align with partisan goals.
The post Trump Warns ‘Judge-Shopping’ is Dems’ ‘Final Weapon’ to ‘Take Down America’ appeared first on Resist the Mainstream.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Jordyn M.
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://resistthemainstream.org and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
