As President Donald J. Trump continues delivering on his America First agenda during his second term, a familiar pattern is reemerging in the halls of justice: the radical left is using the courts not to uphold the law — but to sabotage it. Their weapon of choice? Forum shopping — a strategic effort to funnel lawsuits into the most politically favorable courtrooms in the country.

This isn’t speculation. It’s data.

A deep-dive investigation by RealClearInvestigations uncovered that a staggering 80% of the 350 lawsuits aimed at the Trump administration were filed in just 11 of the nation’s 91 federal district courts. What do these 11 have in common? They’re all dominated by Democrat-appointed judges, according to RealClearPolitics.

While Democrats have appointed roughly 60% of active federal judges nationwide, these 11 courts are even more skewed. In some of them, the bench is almost exclusively packed with judges picked by Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or Joe Biden — judicial activists in robes.

Predictably, left-wing critics claim this is just blowback to what they call “executive overreach.” But the numbers don’t lie. The sharpest arrows in the left’s quiver — nationwide injunctions — are overwhelmingly being fired by Democrat-appointed judges.

These universal injunctions don’t just stop policies for one plaintiff — they grind the entire executive branch to a halt. So far, nearly 40 such injunctions have been used to block President Trump’s initiatives. Over 80% of those rulings came from judges appointed by Democrats.

The epicenter of this judicial warfare? The D.C. District Court.

That court alone handled 143 cases — a staggering 41% of all anti-Trump lawsuits examined in the report. And of its active judges, 73% were installed by Democrat presidents. This is the same court that hosted the partisan Jan. 6 show trials and has repeatedly targeted President Trump’s allies, including Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, and Peter Navarro, through judges like Tanya Chutkan and Beryl Howell.

The left’s legal operatives didn’t stop there. The district courts in Massachusetts and Maryland — each more than 90% filled with Democrat appointees — were also key staging grounds in the legal war. These filings are no accident. They’re calculated moves, exploiting soft spots in the judicial map where liberal ideology can masquerade as justice.

To be clear, case assignment within districts is technically random. But only within the district — and that’s the trick. If you file a lawsuit in a district packed with activist judges, odds are you’ll land a ruling that fits the left’s political goals.

Even Democrats know how effective this has been — and they’re worried conservatives have caught on.

In 2023, Sen. Chuck Schumer threw a public tantrum after pro-life plaintiffs challenged the abortion pill mifepristone in Amarillo, Texas — a district where cases predictably land on the desk of a conservative judge. Schumer called it “judge shopping” and demanded rules to stop it.

The irony? That’s exactly what Democrats have been doing for years — forum shopping to manipulate the judicial process in their favor. Now that conservatives are pushing back, the left is crying foul.

The Judicial Conference of the United States issued some weak, nonbinding “guidance” calling for random case assignments across entire districts. But there’s no enforcement mechanism. Even Schumer admitted Congress may step in with “prescriptive requirements” if courts don’t comply — which would mean giving politicians even more control over which judges hear what cases.

Despite all the bipartisan talk, forum shopping remains alive and well — because it works for the left. It’s a backdoor way to shut down a president’s constitutional authority without winning a single election.

And with universal injunctions now the left’s preferred legal sledgehammer, the incentive to handpick liberal judges has never been stronger. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the constitutionality of these sweeping orders. A decision to rein them in could finally restore integrity to a judiciary that’s been hijacked by partisanship.

If the justices deliver, it may mark the beginning of the end for one of the most cynical strategies ever used to undermine a sitting president — and a victory for the rule of law over judicial activism.