A growing concern in the American legal system is the strategic use of forum shopping, particularly in lawsuits against the Trump administration. RealClearInvestigations reports that 80% of the 350 legal challenges to Trump policies were filed in just 11 of the 91 federal district courts, most dominated by Democrat-appointed judges. This clustering has resulted in a disproportionate number of nationwide injunctions—broad rulings that block federal policies—being issued by these judges. For instance, the D.C. District Court, with 73% of its judges appointed by Democrats, handled 41% of these cases and oversaw high-profile prosecutions tied to the January 6 events.

Critics argue that this practice undermines judicial impartiality and turns courts into ideological battlegrounds. While case assignments are typically randomized, courts in states like Texas allow case filings in specific divisions with only one or two judges, enabling conservative litigants to effectively pick favorable forums. Notably, Democratic leaders, including Senator Chuck Schumer, have publicly criticized forum shopping when employed by conservatives, even as Democrats have used it to challenge Trump-era policies. With bipartisan frustration mounting, the Supreme Court may soon address the constitutionality of nationwide injunctions, a step that could reshape the way presidential policies are legally contested and potentially restore balance to the judiciary’s role in governance.