"FORUM SHOPPING": THE SUPREME COURT'S FAVORITE EXCUSE
or: how both sides played the exact same game until one side won
the Supreme Court claims they had to end nationwide injunctions because of "forum shopping." let's talk about what that means and why it's bullshit.
WHAT IS FORUM SHOPPING?
Basically: Filing your lawsuit in the court most likely to rule in your favor.
Like:
Liberals suing Trump in San Francisco or Hawaii
Conservatives suing Biden in Texas or Alabama
Everyone pretending it's coincidence
THE GOLDEN AGE OF JUDGE SHOPPING (2015-2025)
The game got REALLY obvious:
Liberal Favorites:
Northern District of California (San Francisco)
District of Hawaii
Southern District of New York
District of Maryland
Conservative Favorites:
Northern District of Texas (especially Amarillo)
Eastern District of Texas
Western District of Louisiana
Northern District of Alabama
THE AMARILLO SITUATION
This got absolutely ridiculous:
The Amarillo division of N.D. Texas has ONE JUDGE
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk
Trump appointee
VERY conservative
100% chance of getting him
So EVERY conservative challenge to Biden went there:
Abortion pills? Amarillo
Immigration policy? Amarillo
LGBTQ protections? Amarillo
Climate rules? Amarillo
THE LIBERAL VERSION
Democrats did the SAME THING:
Hawaii has a small federal bench. File there and you likely get:
Judge Derrick Watson
Obama appointee
Blocked Trump's travel ban
Very liberal
California N.D. was the liberal Amarillo:
Tech lawsuits
Immigration challenges
Environmental cases
High chance of sympathetic judge
THE STATISTICS ARE WILD
During Trump's first term:
55 nationwide injunctions
40+ from California, Hawaii, New York, Maryland
Almost none from red states
During Biden's term:
20+ nationwide injunctions (in just 3 years)
15+ from Texas alone
Almost none from blue states
THE HYPOCRISY
Here's the thing: EVERYONE did it.
When conservatives complained about liberal forum shopping:
"This is outrageous!"
"One judge shouldn't control national policy!"
"The system is broken!"
When conservatives did it to Biden:
"We're just using available legal tools"
"Don't hate the player, hate the game"
"Elections have consequences"
THE SUPREME COURT'S TAKE
Barrett's majority opinion acts like this is shocking:
"Forum shopping has become incredibly easy"
NO SHIT. You know why? Because y'all let it happen for DECADES.
THE REAL PROBLEM ISN'T FORUM SHOPPING
The issues:
Single-judge divisions
Some districts have one judge
100% chance of getting them
That's not shopping, that's monopoly
Partisan judicial appointments
Judges are predictable by who appointed them
Trump appointed 200+ federal judges
Biden's playing catch-up
No random assignment
Cases aren't randomly distributed
Related cases go to same judge
Easy to game the system
THE SOLUTION THAT WASN'T
The Court's solution: Ban nationwide injunctions
This doesn't stop forum shopping! It just changes the prize:
Before: Shop for a nationwide injunction
Now: Shop for a favorable ruling on the merits
Still shopping, smaller prize
WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY HELP
Real solutions they ignored:
Random case assignment across divisions
Three-judge panels for constitutional challenges
Faster Supreme Court review
Congressional fixes to jurisdiction
But no, let's just make it harder to stop illegal shit instead.
THE SELECTIVE OUTRAGE
Notice how the Supreme Court:
Never complained when conservative judges blocked Obama
Never complained when liberal judges blocked Trump 1.0
Only acted when it would help Trump 2.0
Suspicious timing!
THE AMARILLO JUDGE SPEAKS
Judge Kacsmaryk actually defended single-judge divisions:
"Rural areas deserve federal courts too"
Sure, but should one judge in rural Texas control whether New York can distribute abortion pills?
THE GAME CONTINUES
Forum shopping isn't dead. Now it's about:
Where to file class actions
Which circuit to appeal to
How to get to the Supreme Court fastest
Shopping for the best procedural advantages
THE HONEST TRUTH
Everyone forum shops because:
The law is political
Judges are political
Outcomes are predictable
Why file where you'll lose?
The Supreme Court didn't solve this. They just changed the rules to favor one side.
THE REAL VICTIM
It's not the courts being "gamed." It's the people who need quick relief from unconstitutional actions.
Before: One lucky plaintiff could protect everyone Now: Everyone needs their own lucky judge
That's not fixing forum shopping. That's institutionalizing inequality.
THE BOTTOM LINE
"Forum shopping" was the excuse, not the reason.
The reason: They wanted to limit judicial power to check the executive.
The excuse: "Oh no, people file lawsuits in favorable courts!"
The result: Constitutional violations continue while we pretend to care about procedure.
Welcome to justice, 2025 style.
GOTO NEXT POST -> CLICK HERE
GOTO FIRST POST -> CLICK HERE
