The onslaught of legal challenges on President Donald Trump’s early actions brought on by federal workers and advocacy groups has found a way to a largely friendly courthouse, which is mostly overseen by sympathetic judges.
These plaintiffs employ well-known and broad strategies used on both sides of the political aisle known as forums or “judge shopping.” That is, it is something that is under the jurisdiction of a US Court of Appeals for a particular political structure, to attempt a lawsuit in a particular district court.
This strategy serves a clear legal purpose. The Supreme Court is the domestic Supreme Court, but most of the time it is not there. This is because the Supreme Court hears an average of less than 100 cases per year, according to federal judicial data. In contrast, 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals handle an average of over 50,000 cases per year. In other words, these courts can often control the most pressing legal matters.
This is why he has filed dozens of lawsuits trying to counteract Trump’s early actions when the president fails.
The Supreme Court hears an average of less than 100 cases each year. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)
And while plaintiffs suing the federal government had to establish regional geographic ties with the districts they are filing their lawsuits, Congress moved widely to lift the requirement more than 30 years ago.
As president, Trump “exemplifies his authority under Article 2 Section 2 to note that our federal law is faithfully enforced,” Mike Davis (A3P), founder and president of the Article III project, told Fox News Digital in an interview.
“That’s his constitutional obligation. And it includes weeding of waste, fraud, abuse, and that’s what he’s doing with Elon Musk and Doge,” said Davis, former Supreme Court clerk at Judge Neil Gorsuch.
However, in recent years there has been a wave of new efforts to reform the system and halt the “judge shopping” process.
This is a strategy used by both Republican and Democrat plaintiffs in increasing regularity. Recently, a group of democratically-led plaintiffs have filed three separate court assignments on Trump’s executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals’ Jurisdiction or in the Boston-based Court of Appeals, where the bench is composed primarily of democratically appointed judges.
Other groups seeking to overturn Trump’s early actions are focused on courts within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a reputation for liberal decisions.
The judge on that bench moved unanimously to stop the Trump administration’s birthright citizenship order from coming into power, leaving the Seattle District Court decision and kicking the matter to the Supreme Court for consideration.
Trump strips security clearance from law firms linked to Jack Smith’s case
Court of Fifth Circuit, located in downtown New Orleans, Louisiana. (Rex Full Star via Getty Images)
Other notable examples include the wave of anti-abortion lawsuits filed in the rural Texas town of Amarillo, where only federal judge, Matthew Kakusmalik, is known for his anti-abortion beliefs and being monitored on behalf of life groups. (Texas is also under the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with 75% of the 26 judges on the bench being appointed Republicans.)
Kacsmaryk’s attempt to ban Mifepristone, an abortion drug, in 2023, was upheld, but narrowed by the Fifth Circuit. It was later completely dismissed by the Supreme Court. This stated that the plaintiffs in this case lacked a proper position.
Yet judicial reform advocates point to this and many other cases as evidence of the length of time an individual makes in an attempt to reform the landscape of federal policy through case law and legal precedents.
“Allowing plaintiffs to choose a judge is contrary to the principle of bedrock federal courts that randomly assign cases to judges through electronic versions of drawing names from hats,” wrote Russell Wheeler, a senior non-resident fellow of the Brookings Institute Governance Research Program.
Litigation Tracker: New Resistance to Fight Trump’s Second Term through the Onslaught of Lawsuits for EOS
The protesters gather outside the Supreme Court. (Fox News Digital/Lisa Bennatan)
Davis said on his side that his organization, A3P, is currently working with the Senate Judiciary Committee to keep the legislation in grass and end the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that came before a single judge.
“The law requires a panel of three judges randomly assigned from all over the country. The lottery system” can hear a variety of cases and prevent the increase in forum shopping, Davis said. Federal judicial leaders and members of Congress introduced efforts last year to stop or reduce the spread of judges’ shopping.
Senate Democrats introduced a bill last spring requiring randomly assigned lawsuits within federal court districts, but failed to gain traction for the rest of Congress.
Last March, the U.S. Judicial Conference, which sets federal court policies, issued new guidance urging courts to randomly assign certain well-known cases to stop court shopping and restore public trust in the court system.
Click here to get the Fox News app
“The Random Litigation Allocation Policy prevents judges from shopping and litigation allocation based on the perceived merits or capabilities of a particular judge,” Judge Robert J. Conrad, secretary of the U.S. Judicial Conference, said in a statement at the time.
Rather, this feature “promotes litigation impartiality and strengthens public trust in federal judiciary,” he said.
Breanne Deppisch is a political reporter for Fox News Digital, covering the Trump administration, focusing on the Department of Justice, the FBI and other national news.
Source link
