Dems’ Strategy to Hurt Trump’s Agenda in Courts Exposed

As legal challenges continue to confront the Trump administration, critics are highlighting a recurring strategy used by the political left: filing lawsuits in specific courts with judges likely to favor liberal outcomes.

The tactic, known as “forum shopping,” is being blamed for stalling key policies through judicial intervention.

A report by RealClearInvestigations analyzed 350 lawsuits targeting the Trump administration and found that 80% of them were filed in just 11 of the 91 federal district courts in the U.S.

These courts reportedly have a strong presence of Democrat-appointed judges, increasing the likelihood of rulings unfavorable to Trump.

While approximately 60% of active federal judges nationwide were appointed by Democratic presidents, the 11 courts most frequently targeted lean even further to the left.

According to the analysis, these districts often hand cases to judges chosen during the Obama, Clinton, or Biden administrations.

Supporters of the lawsuits argue that the legal battles are justified responses to what they consider Trump’s executive overreach.

However, data suggests that Democrat-appointed judges are far more likely to issue nationwide injunctions against Trump’s policies than their Republican counterparts.

Nationwide injunctions—rulings that halt the implementation of policies across the country, not just for the plaintiffs involved—have become a powerful legal tool, per the Conservative Brief.

Nearly 40 of these sweeping rulings have been issued against the Trump administration, with over 80% coming from Democrat-appointed judges.

The D.C. District Court alone handled 41% of the analyzed cases, or 143 lawsuits.

RealClearInvestigations notes that 73% of that court’s judges were appointed by Democratic presidents, making it a key venue in legal action against the administration.

This same court has overseen high-profile cases related to the January 6 events, including trials of Trump allies such as Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, and Peter Navarro. Judges like Tanya Chutkan and Beryl Howell have presided over these proceedings.

Other courts heavily used in these lawsuits include those in Massachusetts and Maryland. In both, over 90% of judges are Democratic appointees. These courts are not randomly selected, analysts say, but are strategic targets chosen for their judicial makeup.

Though district courts assign cases randomly within each jurisdiction, certain districts allow filings in divisions where a particular judge is almost certain to receive the case. Conservative litigants have used similar tactics, such as in Amarillo, Texas, to target issues like abortion medication before sympathetic judges.

In 2023, Sen. Chuck Schumer criticized that practice after conservatives filed such a case. He demanded changes to stop litigants from “hand-picking” judges. However, observers point out that Democrats have used similar strategies for years without complaint.

The Judicial Conference of the United States later issued guidance calling for random case assignments across entire districts. However, this guidance is not enforceable, and political leaders like Schumer have suggested congressional intervention if changes aren’t made.

Despite calls from both sides of the aisle to end forum shopping, the practice remains prevalent. With results favoring their legal goals, left-leaning organizations have continued using it.

Universal injunctions are central to this approach, allowing a single judge to halt federal policies nationwide. Legal experts say this power gives select courts outsize influence over national governance.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to review the constitutionality of nationwide injunctions soon.

The post Dems’ Strategy to Hurt Trump’s Agenda in Courts Exposed appeared first on Resist the Mainstream.