Search Results
6/16/2025, 11:07:39 PM
>>507635551
Legal challenges against the Trump administration suggest a pattern of strategic "forum shopping," with plaintiffs concentrating lawsuits in courts most likely to rule favorably. Ben Weingarten's analysis of 350 cases for RealClearInvestigations shows how litigants may be gaming the judicial system to maximize their chances of success.
RCI found that 80% of cases against the Trump administration were filed in just 11 of the nation's 91 district courts, each with disproportionately high percentages of Democrat-appointed judges.
Three courts – D.C., Massachusetts, and Maryland – handled 60% of all anti-Trump cases. The D.C. District Court alone processed 41% of cases that RCI identified (143 total), where Democrat presidents appointed 73% of active judges.
Nearly 40 universal injunctions against Trump policies came overwhelmingly from Democrat-appointed judges – more than four in five cases. These nationwide injunctions halt administration policies everywhere, not just for the plaintiff bringing the case.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the legitimacy of universal injunctions, which could significantly reduce forum shopping incentives by limiting judges' ability to halt policies nationwide.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/06/12/tipping_the_scales_why_so_many_cases_against_trump_are_heard_by_democrat-appointed_judges_1116070.html
Legal challenges against the Trump administration suggest a pattern of strategic "forum shopping," with plaintiffs concentrating lawsuits in courts most likely to rule favorably. Ben Weingarten's analysis of 350 cases for RealClearInvestigations shows how litigants may be gaming the judicial system to maximize their chances of success.
RCI found that 80% of cases against the Trump administration were filed in just 11 of the nation's 91 district courts, each with disproportionately high percentages of Democrat-appointed judges.
Three courts – D.C., Massachusetts, and Maryland – handled 60% of all anti-Trump cases. The D.C. District Court alone processed 41% of cases that RCI identified (143 total), where Democrat presidents appointed 73% of active judges.
Nearly 40 universal injunctions against Trump policies came overwhelmingly from Democrat-appointed judges – more than four in five cases. These nationwide injunctions halt administration policies everywhere, not just for the plaintiff bringing the case.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the legitimacy of universal injunctions, which could significantly reduce forum shopping incentives by limiting judges' ability to halt policies nationwide.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/06/12/tipping_the_scales_why_so_many_cases_against_trump_are_heard_by_democrat-appointed_judges_1116070.html
6/16/2025, 11:06:02 PM
>>507622306
Legal challenges against the Trump administration suggest a pattern of strategic "forum shopping," with plaintiffs concentrating lawsuits in courts most likely to rule favorably. Ben Weingarten's analysis of 350 cases for RealClearInvestigations shows how litigants may be gaming the judicial system to maximize their chances of success.
RCI found that 80% of cases against the Trump administration were filed in just 11 of the nation's 91 district courts, each with disproportionately high percentages of Democrat-appointed judges.
Three courts – D.C., Massachusetts, and Maryland – handled 60% of all anti-Trump cases. The D.C. District Court alone processed 41% of cases that RCI identified (143 total), where Democrat presidents appointed 73% of active judges.
Nearly 40 universal injunctions against Trump policies came overwhelmingly from Democrat-appointed judges – more than four in five cases. These nationwide injunctions halt administration policies everywhere, not just for the plaintiff bringing the case.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the legitimacy of universal injunctions, which could significantly reduce forum shopping incentives by limiting judges' ability to halt policies nationwide.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/06/12/tipping_the_scales_why_so_many_cases_against_trump_are_heard_by_democrat-appointed_judges_1116070.html
Legal challenges against the Trump administration suggest a pattern of strategic "forum shopping," with plaintiffs concentrating lawsuits in courts most likely to rule favorably. Ben Weingarten's analysis of 350 cases for RealClearInvestigations shows how litigants may be gaming the judicial system to maximize their chances of success.
RCI found that 80% of cases against the Trump administration were filed in just 11 of the nation's 91 district courts, each with disproportionately high percentages of Democrat-appointed judges.
Three courts – D.C., Massachusetts, and Maryland – handled 60% of all anti-Trump cases. The D.C. District Court alone processed 41% of cases that RCI identified (143 total), where Democrat presidents appointed 73% of active judges.
Nearly 40 universal injunctions against Trump policies came overwhelmingly from Democrat-appointed judges – more than four in five cases. These nationwide injunctions halt administration policies everywhere, not just for the plaintiff bringing the case.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the legitimacy of universal injunctions, which could significantly reduce forum shopping incentives by limiting judges' ability to halt policies nationwide.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/06/12/tipping_the_scales_why_so_many_cases_against_trump_are_heard_by_democrat-appointed_judges_1116070.html
Page 1