Roughly 75% of the judges presiding over legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive orders and policy actions were appointed by Democratic presidents, according to an analysis by Just Security, an independent digital law and policy journal affiliated with the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law.
Just Security’s “Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions” litigation tracker reviewed dozens of lawsuits filed against the Trump administration and found that 60 of the federal district court judges involved were Democratic appointees, while 20 were appointed by Republicans. Two additional cases are being heard in California’s Superior Court by judges appointed by former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown. The remaining 14 cases are before magistrate judges, who are not appointed by elected officials.
Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett described the pattern as a form of “judge shopping,” noting that many of the restraining orders against the Trump administration came from Democrat-appointed judges. “Democrats and liberal groups have been sprinting to favorable venues and preferable judges where the result is preordained in their favor against Trump,” Jarrett said. “It’s known derisively as budget shopping. Completely unethical. And many of these restraining orders have one common denominator. They’re ordered by Democrat-appointed judges exceeding their authority, contorting the law to do it.”
For example, the judge who halted the Trump administration’s attempt to ban transgender individuals from military service—Judge Ana Reyes of Washington, D.C.—was appointed by then-President Joe Biden. As previously reported by The Center Square, Reyes has a record of supporting left-leaning causes and political candidates.
The judge who upheld the Trump administration’s efforts to deport criminal foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally—Judge James Boasberg, appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama—attended a private legal conference last year sponsored by the Rodel Institute, according to Just the News. The institute is funded by organizations that have opposed Trump-era policies, including those on immigration, the outlet reported.
Earlier this month, the U.S. House passed legislation aimed at preventing federal district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, The Center Square noted. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), specifically cited Boasberg’s rulings as part of the rationale for introducing the measure. “My bill – The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 – won’t only deal with excesses like Judge Boasberg’s outrageous demands on the President and the Trump Administration,” Issa stated, “it is the comprehensive solution we need to ensure that this problem does not occur anywhere in our federal judiciary and resets the proper and appropriate balance in our courts.”
