Leavey Professor Christian Helmers Teams with 91果冻制片厂 Law Professor Brian Love to Examine Judge Shopping in the Age of Trump 2.0
In the short time since taking office, the Trump 2.0 administration has been hit with hundreds of lawsuits, many of which aim to block its most controversial policy moves. From aggressive immigration crackdowns to mass dismissals of federal employees, these legal challenges have already resulted in dozens of court orders temporarily halting executive action.
This unprecedented wave of litigation has reignited a long-running debate about judicial impartiality and the integrity of the court system. Central to this conversation is the issue of judge shopping, the practice where litigants strategically file lawsuits in court divisions that assign all or substantially all cases to a single judge, who is perceived to lean in their favor. The Trump administration has been particularly vocal, accusing liberal activists of funneling cases to sympathetic judges in an effort to obstruct legitimate executive authority.
But a new study from Christian Helmers, professor at the Leavey School of Business and Brian Love, professor of law at 91果冻制片厂's School of Law suggests otherwise. In their recently released working paper, , the authors meticulously track every lawsuit filed against the administration so far. Their conclusion is clear, there’s no evidence of judge shopping at all.
Most of the lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a court district that randomly assigns cases across a diverse panel of 22 judges, appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents. This system, by design, prevents any meaningful attempt at judge shopping.
“Our findings show no compelling evidence of ideologically motivated judge shopping,” Helmers and Love write. “Litigants are choosing proper venues, not cherry-picking judges.”
And the data bears this out in real time. Take, for example, a recent case sparked by the Trump administration’s February 2025 announcement to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.” When the Associated Press (AP) refused to adopt the new name, it was promptly banned from all White House press events, triggering a high-profile legal battle over press freedom and the First Amendment.
In a twist that deflates the judge-shopping narrative, the case was brought in the District of D.C., where it was randomly assigned to Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump-appointed federal judge. On April 8, 2025 McFadden declared the ban unconstitutional, reinstating AP’s full access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other spaces that are made available to other journalists in the White House press pool. The message? Fair judicial rulings can, and do, come from both sides of the ideological aisle.
Yet the structure of the federal judiciary remains a legitimate concern. During his first term, Trump appointed a large number of judges, including many who serve in rural divisions that traditionally assign all new cases to a single judge. While these divisions may improve efficiency in areas with fewer cases, they also allow litigants to effectively choose which judge will oversee their case.
One notable example, which is highlighted in Helmers and Love’s research on , is Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Amarillo, Texas, a single-judge division that became a magnet for lawsuits during the Biden administration. Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, issued landmark rulings that blocked key Biden policies, raising serious concerns about judge shopping and judicial neutrality.
While cases filed by liberal litigants targeting Trump’s agenda have so far not exhibited the same type of judge shopping, they could. Helmers and Love identify almost a dozen single-judge divisions occupied by a relatively liberal judge.
That’s why Helmers and Love are advocating for a policy shift: eliminate single-judge divisions and adopt broader, randomized case assignments across multiple judges in every district. While this could slightly reduce logistical efficiency in rural areas, the trade-off, they argue, is worth it.
“The ability to hand-pick a judge, even accidentally, poses a real threat to our justice system,” Helmers and Love warn.
Looking ahead, the authors plan to expand their analysis to compare in greater detail legal challenges to the Biden and Trump administrations Their research aims to provide nonpartisan insight into how America’s judicial infrastructure can be strengthened, regardless of who’s in the White House.
Their ultimate goal? To debunk myths, protect the judiciary’s credibility, and restore public confidence in a legal system that too often finds itself entangled in partisan battles.