AND NO ONE JUDGE SHOPS MORE THAN THE rIGHT:
Supreme Court rolls back (finally!) politically motivated judge-shopping (Ted Diadiun, 7/07/25, cleveland.com)
Under the archaic policy that had become the norm, a ruling from any one district judge, who hears a specific lawsuit and believes a presidential order to be unconstitutional, immediately becomes the ruling for the entire country – unless and until it is successfully appealed to the Supreme Court.
The process is called “universal injunction.” Once rarely employed, it has been used with increasing frequency over the last three presidential administrations – primarily in opposition to Trump’s orders.
It’s generally considered that universal injunctions became accepted practice in 1963, although the Harvard Law Review dug up an injunction issued in 1913. Either way, according to research gathered by the Baker Hostetler law firm, only 27 such injunctions occurred in the entire 20th century. Contrast that with the 64 issued in Trump’s first term alone, and the 30 that have stopped him in just the first three months of his current term.