Judge Shopping Forum

dems passed a bill to limit?

FORUM SHOP RUSSIAGATE BS LAWFARE ARTL III QUINONES

---

AN 2 26

JPMorgan Chase took issue with Donald Trump's attempt to name its CEO, Jamie Dimon, in a major lawsuit against the bank, alleging in a new court filing that his inclusion was done "fraudulently."

In January, Trump filed suit against the banking giant, accusing it of putting himself and his businesses on a "blacklist" following his first term, effectively "debanking" him. The suit further alleges that this decision was directed by Dimon and is seeking $5 billion in damages.

It was that detail that the company went after in a court filing submitted on Thursday, per a report from Bloomberg. In it, JPMorgan Chase claimed that Trump's inclusion of Dimon as a defendant in the lawsuit was done "fraudulently," in order to get the case filed in Florida state court, where Trump has tended to land sympathetic judges, and avoid going to federal court.

The company explained that Dimon cannot be included in the suit under the Florida unfair trade practices law cited by the president, because he is "closely and comprehensively regulated by the federal banking agencies. The filing seeks to have the case moved to a federal court in Miami, with plans to move it again to a state court in New York somewhere down the line.

The bank's ultimate goal is to have the "threadbare" lawsuit dismissed. Lawyers for the bank accused the suit of being "unclear" on key points of its argument, particularly about the "blacklist" at the core of its argument.

“They do not explain what this ‘blacklist’ entails, when it was created, to whom it was supposedly circulated, or any other detail describing it,” the bank's lawyers said. “Nor is it plausible that JPMorgan could create such a list consistent with the complex federal regulatory scheme to which it is subject.”

In a statement to Bloomberg, Trump's legal team stood by the claims in the lawsuit, though it did not provide evidence to counter JPMorgan's assertions. The team also claimed, as they have often done, that Trump is suing the company in the name of the little guy, as he "is standing up for all those wrongly debanked by JPMorgan Chase and their cohorts."

"By their own admission, JPMorgan Chase, at the direction of CEO Jamie Dimon, unlawfully debanked and blacklisted President Trump, his family, and several of his businesses, causing overwhelming financial and reputational harm," the statement read.

The same day that this filing was submitted, the Financial Times reported that JPMorgan Chase has been in talks to provide banking services for Trump's "Board of Peace" initiative. It is unclear how this deal might impact the lawsuit, and vice versa. Though not known as an outspoken Trump opponent, Dimon recently called out Trump's demand to have all credit card interest capped at 10 percent, calling the idea an "economic disaster."

---

MMA

May 30, 2025, edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): If you can believe you had a federal district judge on Wednesday say that the Trump administration's effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil may be unconstitutional, but I'm sorry, conservative legal experts are not buying -- you're not from this country. Why do you think you have constitutional rights?

This guy was leading these pro-Palestine, anti-Israel activists and protests at Columbia University. An immigration judge said he could be deported, but then a US district judge for New Jersey said that the order is likely to be dismissed as unconstitutionally vague. Again, judge shopping, judicial activism.

---

an 5 25

In a Thursday, May 29 post on X, formerly Twitter, President Donald Trump's White House adviser, Stephen Miller, angrily wrote, "We are living under a judicial tyranny." Miller's post was in response to a U.S. Court of International Trade ruling that blocks — at least temporarily — most of the tariffs Trump is imposing on the United States' trading partners.

But Miller isn't the only MAGA Republican who is using the phrase "judicial tyranny" to attack federal judges who are blocking Trump's executive orders. Trump and his MAGA allies, from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to Vice President JD Vance, claim that federal courts are failing to respect the president's executive powers — and Trump's critics are responding that in fact, the courts are playing the role they are supposed to play in the United States' system of checks and balances.

In an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on May 30, attorney Paul Rosenzweig — a former U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official — lays out the flaws and contradictions of the "judicial tyranny" arguments coming from Trump and his MAGA allies.

"Trump wants you to think that he is the victim of district court judges gone crazy enjoining his actions," Rosenzweig explains. "To make that case, he also wants you to think that what is happening to him is the same thing that happened to (former President Joe) Biden's policies — district court judges interfering with executive prerogative. But that's just not the case. And diving into the facts makes it clear that this argument really isn't about universal injunctions — cases where a district court judge grants interim equitable relief that applies across the entire country."

IFrame Content

Rosenzweig continues, " The argument is really about forum-shopping and judicial gerrymandering…. The facts on the ground are that the universal injunctions against Trump are truly universal. As of today, more than 20 different federal district court judges have issued injunctive relief in at least 180 different cases. And the number goes up with every passing day. There is no good evidence that Trump's opponents are forum-shopping — bringing cases before courts where there is the greatest expectation of having judges who will rule in their favor."

MAGA Republicans, Rosenzweig stresses, have a long history of seeking "universal injunctions" against Democratic policies they don't like — including far-right Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

"By March 2023," the former DHS official observes, "Paxton's office had filed 28 lawsuits against the Biden Administration in federal district courts in Texas; of those, 18 were filed in single-judge divisions, including Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's division and a single-judge division held by another Trump appointee, Judge Drew Tipton…. In a world in which we could have confidence in the good faith of an administration and a presumption as to its regularity of operation, universal injunctions would be a little-used safety-valve check on executive authority. But today, we live in a different world — one where MAGA gamesmanship and judicial forum-shopping were instrumental in frustrating various Biden initiatives."

Rosenzweig adds, "Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it seems quite possible that the Court will depower judicial opposition in the service of conservative policy."

*Paul Rosenzweig's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

---

Forum shopping - Wikipedia 5 25 flagged

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants taking actions to have their legal case heard in the court they believe is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and thus have attracted plaintiffs to file new cases there, even if there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction.

The term became more widely used as a result of legal developments that expanded the number of available forums for litigants to bring cases, thus allowing litigants to effectively "shop" for the forum they believe will provide the best outcome. For example, in International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the concept of personal jurisdiction to allow courts to hear disputes over defendants who had only 'minimum contacts' with its jurisdiction.^[1] Foreign litigants were also attracted to file suits in the United States due to a perception that it had a more favorable litigation climate. Other examples include the United Kingdom, which offers stricter defamation laws and generous divorce settlements.

The term "forum shopping" has taken on a negative connotation amongst some who view it as gamesmanship and manipulation that undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system, in order to obtain an unfair advantage.^[2] On the other side, some believe forum shopping is not inherently bad or evil, but merely the natural consequence of litigants being able to select from a number of potential forums to bring a case, and thus naturally selecting the forum they think will provide the most favorable outcome. For example, U.S. District Court Judge Sam B. Hall Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, stated in 1993 that "[i]in reality, every litigant who files a lawsuit engages in forum shopping when he chooses a place to file suit."^[3] The term has also become adopted in a wider context for the activity of repeatedly seeking a venue for a concern, complaint, or action, until the most favorable venue is obtained.

Related notions

When a case is filed before a court, the court decides whether it has personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and if so, whether it is the most appropriate forum or venue. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Latin for "inappropriate forum", a judge has a discretion to transfer a case if the court selected is not the most convenient one. If the courts in two states would accept civil jurisdiction, the plaintiff must be able to show that justice requires the trial to take place in the forum suggested by the plaintiff.

...

Efforts to discourage forum shopping

While the plaintiff commencing the litigation is generally considered the master of their own complaint,^[9] courts may object to forum shopping for several reasons. The fair resolution of a case hinging on technical differences from one jurisdiction to the next would offend the sense of justice, and more practically, judges may fear that having the reputation of a forum favorable to certain types of plaintiffs will delay the timely dispensation of justice in other cases by increasing their workload.

Under the *Erie* doctrine, a federal court hearing a case under the diversity jurisdiction must apply the law of the state in which the court is sitting. When a case has connection to more than just a single state, the forum state's choice of law principles generally guide the selection of what place's law will apply.

Parties to a contract may seek to prevent forum shopping by inserting a forum selection clause or a choice of law clause in their contract. Such clauses are now generally enforced by the courts.[original ^research?]

In June 2023, Illinois governor JB Pritzker signed a bill intended to discourage forum shopping by requiring that any lawsuits challenging the constitutionally of a state law be filed in one of two counties, either Sangamon County where the state capital of Springfield is located, or Cook County, the state's most populous county and home to multiple state offices in Chicago.^[10]

In March 2024, the Judicial Conference of the United States announced a policy against "judge shopping" for cases seeking a nationwide injunction or related relief.^[11][12] "Judge shopping" in this context refers to forum shopping in which a litigant files in a local division of a district court where one or two judges are assigned nearly all cases (such as the Amarillo division of the Northern District of Texas or the Waco division of the Western District of Texas) rather than in a larger division with multiple judges. }:}:

Under the new policy, the Judicial Conference said that district courts should randomly assign any civil case seeking nationwide or statewide relief to any judge within the district. But the Judicial Conference policy is merely a recommendation and is not binding; on March 29, 2024, the Northern District of Texas, home to two judges frequently sought out by conservative litigants, announced that it would not adopt the Judicial Conference's recommendations.^[13]}:

...

---

an 5 25

In a Thursday, May 29 post on X, formerly Twitter, President Donald Trump's White House adviser, Stephen Miller, angrily wrote, "We are living under a judicial tyranny." Miller's post was in response to a U.S. Court of International Trade ruling that blocks — at least temporarily — most of the tariffs Trump is imposing on the United States' trading partners.

But Miller isn't the only MAGA Republican who is using the phrase "judicial tyranny" to attack federal judges who are blocking Trump's executive orders. Trump and his MAGA allies, from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to Vice President JD Vance, claim that federal courts are failing to respect the president's executive powers — and Trump's critics are responding that in fact, the courts are playing the role they are supposed to play in the United States' system of checks and balances.

In an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on May 30, attorney Paul Rosenzweig — a former U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official — lays out the flaws and contradictions of the "judicial tyranny" arguments coming from Trump and his MAGA allies.

IFrame Content

MAGA Republicans, Rosenzweig stresses, have a long history of seeking "universal injunctions" against Democratic policies they don't like — including far-right Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Rosenzweig adds, "Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it seems quite possible that the Court will depower judicial opposition in the service of conservative policy."

*Paul Rosenzweig's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

---