On June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a significant win by allowing it to resume deportations of migrants to third-party countries—places the migrants may have no connection to, yet another win by Trump, highlighting the disconnect between a small cadre of judges substituting progressive thinking vs. what the Constitution says. Highlighting the legal vs. political nature of these rulings, read how another federal judge instantaneously subverted the will of the Supreme Court concerning that decision:
Judge Brian Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Appointed by President Biden, Murphy issued a ruling that effectively maintained a block on deporting certain migrants to third countries, even after the U.S. Supreme Court had stayed his broader injunction.
Real Clear Investigations did a yeoman’s job researching and confirming what many of us already knew. By maintaining a small band of progressive judges on speed dial, Democrats have successfully threatened Donald Trump’s agenda and the wishes of over 77 million Americans. The use of nationwide injunctions on this scale has never happened before. (except for Trump’s prior term)
Trump’s success with the Supreme Court has improved significantly from his first term, when only 35% of decisions went his way. This term, Trump has been successful 83% of the time on emergency appeals. However, in rapidly evolving and sometimes critical moments, the ability of a single unelected district judge to decide an issue that could be of immediate importance at a crucial moment undermines the president’s authority. It emboldens his critics, who act like they have more power than the president. It’s happened already.
Alien Enemies Act Enforcement Expansion:
- Blocked by: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Overturned Jun. 23 by the Supreme Court.
- Timing: March 2025.
- Why it mattered: The administration sought to expedite deportations of nationals from hostile states. The court issued a nationwide injunction, citing due process concerns and a lack of individualized review.
- Consequence: Millions of illegal aliens now have due process rights that previous administrations did not have to comply with. Estimates are that if upheld, it could take 10-15 years to give all those affected multiple rounds of appeals, with finality never assured.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Trump v. CASA, a pivotal case that could reshape the use of universal (or nationwide) injunctions—court orders that block federal policies across the entire country, not just for the plaintiffs involved.
- The case centers on Executive Order 14160, issued by President Trump in January 2025, which seeks to deny birthright citizenshipto children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders.
- Some were skeptical of eliminating nationwide injunctions entirely, citing concerns about judicial efficiency and fairness.
- Others questioned whether lower courts can issue remedies beyond the plaintiffs bringing the case.
Democrat appointed judges compose three-quarters of the lower court justices who have blocked Trump policies. The plaintiff’s goal in forum shopping is to launch their suit in a district where they are more likely to draw a sympathetic justice – ideally, this district would also include an appellate court stacked with like-minded judges.
Real Clear Investigations found that plaintiffs brought 80% of those cases before just 11 of the nation’s 91 district courts. Three hundred fifty cases have been brought against the administration thus far.
While Democrat presidents have appointed roughly 60% of all active district court judges, each of the 11 district courts where the anti-Trump challenges have been clustered boasts an even higher percentage of Democrat appointees. In several of these venues, the administration’s challengers are almost guaranteed that a judge picked by Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton will preside over their case.
The analysis shows that these injunctions have disproportionately emerged from Democrat-leaning courts where plaintiffs have brought the lion’s share of suits, and that Democrat-appointed judges are overwhelmingly responsible for ordering them.
Plaintiffs have brought roughly 60% of all cases against Trump in three district courts with a disproportionate number of active judges appointed by Democratic presidents: the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Maryland.
Plaintiffs filed 41% of all cases RCI identified – 143 in all – in the D.C. District Court, where Democratic presidents appointed 73% of active judges.
The court, however, is seen by some on the right as hostile to President Trump. It includes several prominent judges, including Chief Justice Jeb Boasberg, Tanya Chutkan, and Beryl Howell, who have a history of issuing adverse rulings against the president and some of his confidantes, including Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, and Peter Navarro. The court also conducted the Jan. 6 trials.
After the D.C. District Court, plaintiffs have brought the most cases before the Districts of Massachusetts and Maryland, whose rosters of active judges are each 90% or more Democrat-appointed.
Additionally, the pool of judges who may hear such cases extends beyond the nearly 680 active district court judges to include several hundred long-tenured judges, 65 years or older, who have taken senior status and work part-time. In 2024, such judges presided over 25% of all completed trials.
District court judges’ increasing willingness to provide universal relief, starting during the first Trump administration, has only further incentivized the practice for those who want to hamstring a president’s agenda.
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly limited federal courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions in Trump v. Casa (No. 24A884). This landmark decision fundamentally reshapes federal litigation practices, particularly in cases challenging federal executive orders and regulations, by restricting injunctions strictly to parties directly involved in specific lawsuits.
- The case centers on Executive Order 14160, issued by President Trump in January 2025, which seeks to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. Some were skeptical of eliminating nationwide injunctions entirely, citing concerns about judicial efficiency and fairness.
- Others questioned whether lower courts have the authority to issue remedies that extend beyond the plaintiffs in a case.
Conclusion:-
There is little doubt that the current practice of Forum shopping is war by other means. Delays in the implementation of Trump’s promises to the American people have resulted in further avoidable death and destruction all over the country and have us questioning activist judges who don’t seem to be slowing down. There are two pivotal questions: Will the Supreme Court rein in these Justices, especially now, after a New Hampshire Judge just ignored a Supreme Court ruling? And, two, will we see what is happening for what it is—criminal intent to use their position to thwart a sitting president?
Allan J. Feifer—Patriot
Author, Businessman, Thinker, and Strategist. Read more about Allan, his background, and his ideas to create a better tomorrow at www.1plus1equals2.com. Read additional great writers here.
You may also enjoy these Articles, published on National Platforms
Recent Comments