More and more people, when lawyers bring divisive political issues to the court, seek federal jurisdictions, hoping to find judges who sympathize with their worldview. According to both sides of the political aisle, the phenomenon is called venue shopping, a new news analysis of federal court data in a case seeking national impact.

Analysis shows that the Conservatives prosecuting the Biden administration often try to hear their cases in the small federal court in Texas. These lawsuits often landed in court with a judge, helping to ensure that the first ruling would come from a Republican appointment. The court in Texas also means that any Biden objection will go to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which is largely conservative, Fifth Circuit. The case reviewed was filed before December 31, 2024 in the first Trump administration or Biden administration.

The analysis found that Texas courts included Victoria and Amarillo, the small cities were the first and third largest venues for the challenges facing the Biden administration. Amarillo's only federal judge is a U.S. District Court judge Matthew Kacsmarykto a large extent, issued National ban Disabled drugs Mifes Certificateused with the drug misoprostol to end pregnancy. Analysis shows that six of the top ten stadiums that raised Biden’s challenge were on the Fifth Tour, covering Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

President Trump himself has a case in Amarillo federal court where he is Sue CBS News In October, he claimed to be a "deceptive" editor in an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris in "60 Minutes." 2024 election. The network has said that the interviews as editors are not “tampered or deceptive” and has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

When Mr. Trump first took office, liberals filed cases in larger venues, mainly in the 9th Circuit, which includes most Western countries. CBS has also been tracking more than 300 cases against the Trump administration. In addition to the District Court of Columbia, which traditionally filed national cases, Trump’s second term cases increasingly landed before judges in Massachusetts, the bluest area on the Tour, the bluest court of appeals – the U.S. Court of Appeals. At least 46 cases have been submitted on the First Tour, with 34 in Massachusetts.

The Supreme Court is now considering the question of whether a single federal judge should be able to pass the publication National ban. The case was filed against the Trump administration's execution order to end the birthright citizenship of children with parents in the United States.

The first citizen case of birth right was filed by the United Latin American Citizens Union and other groups in one of the Blue District Courts in New Hampshire, which is also within the jurisdiction of the First Circuit.

“We’re seeing Democrats challenge some of Trump’s policies in some of these blue countries,” said Juan Proaño, CEO of Lulac, who has never seen so many execution orders in such a short time, over 150. In fact, what they really try to do actually changes their range of capabilities so that they can be purchased through their existing agents.

Proaño said it was normal to find a friendly court or venue.

“If you want to advocate for your clients and try to advocate for classes, then finding the best venue, the best arguments and the best plaintiffs is our job to file a lawsuit in court,” he said. “At the end of the day, that’s really our focus. We’re going to do this in any state and in any state and in any court where we do feel like we have an advantage.”

Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state issued nationwide directives to suspend Trump’s right to birth citizenship, which U.S. District Judge John Coughenour called: “Blatantly unconstitutional.”

There may be far-reaching consequences

If the justice decides to lift the national pause and limit the scope of the ban, it can have far-reaching consequences. Trump's birthright citizen order will take effect in states that do not participate in the lawsuit. In other cases, the Supreme Court's ruling could also affect the injunction.

"There is a cost," Vladeck said. "If it's a hand-picked judge in a particularly one-sided forum, then there will be problems going to the court first."

Once favored by Republicans seeking state bans to stop Obama and Biden’s policies, Mr. Trump is now slamming the court for sending an injunction that interferes with his agenda, calling for the Supreme Court to intervene. He argued that a judge could not stop the president's policy.

"Stop the national ban before it's too late. If Judge Roberts and the U.S. Supreme Court don't immediately resolve this toxic and unprecedented situation, then our country will be in very serious trouble!" He wrote about the social networking of truth.

The surge in lawsuits against the Trump administration has led to dozens of national bans, preventing its policies from being implemented.

CBS's more than 300 suits are once again favoring larger places. Outside Washington, D.C., there are the largest number of lawsuits filed in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland, California and New York.

West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey believes that when certain circuit courts are filed, it erodes confidence in the courts and a district judge can issue a universal injunction for the entire country.

"If you try to buy a national ban nationwide, you don't allow a national ban to argue - because we have a court that aims to issue an injunction for the entire country," he said.

“People are beginning to see Circuit judges as an extension of the political process,” McCukey said. “It is fundamentally disastrous because the public sees the impartiality and power of the court system…because the court has no integrity, it is nothing.”

Shopping may be inevitable, but “Judges shop a little differently”

In March 2024, at the request of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Judicial Conference formulated policies for the federal courts, proposing a random case allocation policy to limit plaintiffs to the effective selection of judges by filing lawsuits. Now, almost every federal district court follows that guidance.

"There is actually only one invisible reservation," Vladeck said. The northern Texas area has only one or two district court satellites run by judges.

It is worth noting that Massachusetts adopted a random case policy only a few weeks after the state filed a birthright citizen case. According to a memorandum released on February 11, 2025, the policy applies to certain cases challenging the federal policy of the region. The state's Springfield and Worcester divisions were appointed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden, respectively. The memorandum specifies that “the order applies to civil proceedings seeking to prohibit or require the enforcement of federal laws nationwide.”

Vladeck acknowledged that “forum shopping is inevitable” but “judge shopping is a little different” because the litigants know exactly which judge they will get.

"I think sports fans will never be happy in a world where a team has to choose referees, referees and judges in every game," he said.