Forum-shopping: it’s not just your imagintion
As the Trump administration faces substantial pushback in the courts, including an unprecedented wave of nationwide injunctions halting its policies, some are claiming that his opponents are tilting the scales of justice by selectively bringing their lawsuits before sympathetic courts in a practice called “forum shopping.” They note that three-quarters of the lower court justices who have blocked Trump policies were appointed by Democrats.
Gaming the federal justice system, however, is harder than it sounds because plaintiffs bring cases before courts rather than judges. Most federal courts have a mix of judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans. The plaintiff’s goal in forum shopping is to launch their suit in a district where they are more likely to draw a sympathetic justice – ideally, this district would also include an appellate court stacked with like-minded judges.
To see whether Trump’s adversaries are engaging in forum shopping, RealClearInvestigations analyzed 350 cases brought against the administration. We found that plaintiffs have brought 80% of those cases before just 11 of the nation’s 91 district courts. While Democrat presidents have appointed roughly 60% of all active district court judges, each of the 11 district courts where the anti-Trump challenges have been clustered boasts an even higher percentage of Democrat appointees. In several of these venues, the administration’s challengers are almost guaranteed that a judge picked by Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton will preside over their case.
We pretty much already knew that. But it’s interesting to see the numbers.
The left is nothing but resourceful and you can bet that leftist lawyers are working on ways around the Supreme Court decision. Here is the Google AI description of a class action lawsuit. It seems there’s a lot of discretion on the part of the judge.
“A class action lawsuit requires a large group of people (numerosity) who have suffered similar harm or injury (commonality) due to the same defendant’s actions (typicality), and the named plaintiffs must adequately represent the interests of the entire class (adequacy). These cases often involve issues like defective products, environmental pollution, securities fraud, or mass casualties.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
1. Numerosity: The class must be large enough that individual lawsuits would be impractical. While there isn’t a magic number, courts generally look for a class size where joining each individual case separately would be overly burdensome.
2. Commonality: The claims of the class members must share significant legal or factual issues. Minor differences in individual circumstances don’t necessarily defeat commonality, but there must be a common thread to the harm experienced.
3. Typicality: The claims of the named plaintiffs (those initiating the lawsuit) must be typical of the claims of the entire class. They cannot have unique circumstances that distinguish them significantly from the rest of the class. “
I’m having fun trying to figure out how best to pronounce imagintion (mostly where to put the stress accent!) and keep falling back on the late comedienne Imogene Coca.
Hey, give her a break. What’s an “a” or two among friends?
I don’t criticize at all Kate, as I hoped to have indicated — the amusement itself means I rather like having the absent a . . . i.e. don’t have a need for it at all.
Forum-shopping works well when a small district has only one very predictable judge. You get medium returns when a smallish district has a few judges, preferably all predictably on your side, but in a pinch, when a very large percentage of the judges are on your side.
For some years in the 1980s-90s, Delaware was the happening place for companies to file bankruptcy. You knew exactly what you were going to get. The judges there would find the required nexus to the jurisdiction in the mere fact that the companies were incorporated under Delaware law. In other districts, you were playing Russian roulette.
It wasn’t all about pro-debtor bias; people also considered things like whether a judge controlled his docket and ruled quickly.
Shopping around for some sanity…when there’s a humongous shortage raging—nary a sanity to be had for love or money…so it seems…
Time for some compare and contrast…
“Stay Sane!”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/stay-sane
And Turley:
‘…Liberal Justices Predict “Chaos” & The Demise Of Public Education Without Mandatory LGBTQ Material’—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/end-nigh-liberal-justices-predict-chaos-demise-public-education-without-mandatory-lgbtq
(Thank the powers that be for this blog…)
Oh really
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/jerome-bond-tuesday-july-1-2025-c
I have lost all regard for the US judicial system; it is just another political organization whose members wear long robes and will carry out the dirty work of the politically powerful provided their ideologies are in alignment.
And since when was it established that a single federal district judge has jurisdiction, via any his rulings, over the entire USA plus the executive branch?
If that is not bad enough – a dictatorship of the judiciary, taking on powers never granted to them – THREE supreme court justices in the minority opined that yep, a federal district court judge has legal authority of the executive branch.
One of the three, Kagan, joined the minority, yet some years back she said the exact opposite while being interviewed.
See here:
https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2025/06/28/liberal-justice-kagan-explained-why-district-courts-cant-be-allowed-constrain-presidents-in-2022-n2191017
Our court system is a joke, a disgrace.
Miguel @9:13 am,
that is one heckuva post you linked to (just saw it now)….
Example A (of many):
Example B:
[Emphasis mine; Barry M.]