Increasingly, when lawyers take divisive political issues to court, they seek out federal jurisdictions where they hope to find judges sympathetic to their worldview. This phenomenon, known as venue shopping, has been employed by both sides of the political aisle, according to a new CBS News analysis of federal court data for cases seeking nationwide impact.
The analysis suggests that conservatives suing the Biden administration frequently tried to have their cases heard in tiny federal courts in Texas. The lawsuits often landed in courts with just a single judge, helping ensure the first ruling would come from Republican appointees. That the courts were in Texas also meant any Biden objections would head to the largely conservative 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The cases reviewed were filed during and appealed by the first Trump administration or the Biden administration through Dec. 31, 2024.
Those Texas courts include Victoria and Amarillo, small cities the analysis found were the first and third most common venues for challenges against the Biden administration. The only federal judge in Amarillo is U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, largely known for issuing a nationwide injunction banning the drug mifepristone, which is used with the drug misoprostol to end pregnancies. Six of the top 10 courts where Biden challenges were filed are in the 5th Circuit, encompassing the states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, according to the analysis.
President Trump himself has a case pending in Amarillo’s federal court, where he sued CBS News in October for what he alleges is “deceitful” editing of an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris on “60 Minutes” during the 2024 campaign. The network has said the interview as edited is not “doctored or deceitful” and has filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.
When Mr. Trump first took office, liberals filed cases in larger venues, predominantly in the 9th Circuit, which includes most western states. CBS has also been tracking more than 300 cases filed against the current Trump administration. Beyond the D.C. District Court, where nationwide cases are traditionally filed, cases during Trump’s second term have increasingly been landing before judges in Massachusetts, which is the bluest district in the circuit with the bluest appeals court – the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. At least 46 cases have been filed in the 1st Circuit, among them, 34 in Massachusetts.
The Supreme Court is now weighing in on the question of whether a single federal judge should be able to dictate policy for the entire country by issuing a nationwide injunction. The case was brought in connection to a Trump administration executive order to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents are in the U.S. illegally.
The first birthright citizenship case was brought by The League of United Latin American Citizens and other groups in one of these blue district courts, in New Hampshire, which is also in the jurisdiction of the 1st Circuit.
“We’re seeing Democrats challenging some of Trump’s policies in some of these blue states,” said Juan Proaño, CEO of LULAC, the oldest and largest Latino civil rights organization in the U.S. “We’ve never seen a president sign so many executive orders in such a short amount of time, over 150. What they’re trying to do is really change the levers of power in regards to how they can actually pass their agenda.”
Proaño said it’s normal to look for a friendly court or venue.
“If you’re trying to advocate for your clients and you’re trying to advocate for a class, then it’s our job to find the best venue and also the best arguments and the best plaintiffs as well, to make the case in the court of law,” he said. “At the end of the day, this is really our focus. And we will do that in any state and in any court where we really do feel like we have an advantage.”
Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington State issued nationwide injunctions pausing Trump’s directive on birthright citizenship, with U.S. District Judge John Coughenour calling it: “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Far-reaching consequences possible
If the justices decide to lift the nationwide pause and limit the scope of the injunctions, it could have far-reaching consequences. Trump’s birthright citizenship order would go into effect in states not involved in the lawsuit. The Supreme Court’s decision could also impact injunctions in other cases, too.
“There are costs,” Vladeck said. “Having one court go first is obviously going to be problematic if it’s a hand-picked judge in a particularly one-sided forum.”
Once favored by Republicans, who sought out national injunctions to block Obama and Biden policies, Mr. Trump has now blasted the courts for issuing injunctions that interfere with his agenda, calling on the Supreme Court to intervene. He argues that one judge shouldn’t be able to block presidential policy.
“STOP NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!” he wrote on Truth Social.
A surge of lawsuits against the Trump administration have led to dozens of nationwide injunctions blocking the implementation of his policies.
The more than 300 suits CBS is tracking have again favored larger venues. Outside Washington, D.C., the highest number of lawsuits were filed in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland, California and New York.
J.B. McCuskey, the attorney general of West Virginia, argues that it erodes confidence in the courts when lawsuits are being brought in certain circuits, and one district judge can issue a universal injunction for the entire country.
“If you are trying to forum shop for a nationwide injunction, you are making the argument for why nationwide injunction should not be allowed — because we have a court that is designed to issue injunctions for the entire country,” he said.
“People begin to look at circuit judges as an extension of the political process,” said McCuskey. “And that is fundamentally disastrous for the way that the public views the impartiality and the power of our court system … because the court is nothing if it doesn’t have its integrity.”
Shopping for venue likely inevitable, but “judge shopping is a little different”
In March of 2024, at the request of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Judicial Conference, which makes policies for the federal courts, recommended a random case-assignment policy in order to limit plaintiffs from effectively choosing judges through where they file lawsuits. Almost every federal district court now follows that guidance.
“There’s really only one invisible holdout,” Vladeck said, pointing to the Northern District of Texas, where there are district court satellites run by only a single judge or two.
Notably, Massachusetts adopted the random assignment case policy only weeks after a birthright citizenship case was filed in the state. The policy applies to certain cases challenging federal policies filed in single-judge districts, according to a memo issued on February 11, 2025. The state’s Springfield and Worcester divisions each have one sitting district judge, appointed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden, respectively. The memo specifies that the “order applies to any civil action seeking to bar or mandate nationwide enforcement of a federal law.”
Vladeck acknowledges that “forum shopping is inevitable” but that “judge shopping is a little different” because litigants know exactly which judge they are going to get.
“I think sports fans would never be happy in a world in which one team got to pick the referees and the umpires and the judges in every single game,” he said.
