Democratic states opposing President-elect Donald Trump will face a challenging legal landscape due to the conservative reshaping of the judiciary during his first term. With a conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court and decreased influence of liberal judges in key appeals courts, such as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Trump’s opponents are bracing for legal battles on issues like immigration, the environment, and healthcare.
During Trump’s first term, Democratic attorneys general from various states launched 155 multistate lawsuits against his policies, achieving an 83% success rate. States like California and Washington led the charge then and are gearing up to do so again. The 23 states with Democratic attorneys general in the coming year are scrutinizing Trump’s campaign pledges and preparing for legal challenges.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, mentioned possible litigation targets like Trump’s plan to deport undocumented immigrants. California is allocating funds for legal battles, as Governor Gavin Newsom seeks $25 million for the state’s Department of Justice. However, these lawsuits will navigate a federal judiciary altered by Trump’s extensive judicial appointments, including three Supreme Court justices that have shifted it to a conservative stance.
Trump’s appointees have influenced not just the Supreme Court but also the federal appeals courts, where 54 judges have been appointed, reshaping the judiciary. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, known for its liberal reputation, was a focal point for cases challenging Trump’s policies in his first term. With the judiciary now more conservative, Democratic-led states are strategizing on how to navigate this new legal landscape.
“The city of courts will provide us with a fair hearing, and we shall prevail.” In 2018, Trump criticized the 9th Circuit, labeling it a “disgrace” due to its decisions rejecting key parts of his first-term agenda. This included rulings against his travel ban on six Muslim-majority countries and his attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. However, Trump seized the opportunity to appoint 10 conservative judges to the 9th Circuit, which previously had a majority of Democratic appointees. Mike Davis of the Article III Project noted that President Trump effectively transformed the once-liberal 9th Circuit. The balance now leans towards conservatism, with 16 Democratic appointees and 13 named by Republican presidents.
This shift has led to a higher frequency of conservative-dominated panels hearing appeals in the court. As a result, John Collins, a law professor at George Washington University, highlighted the increased risk involved in litigants pursuing cases in the 9th Circuit, stating that outcomes are less certain compared to before.
Experts suggest that this change may influence litigants challenging policies under the second Trump administration to seek out other jurisdictions with more reliably liberal benches. The potential for delays and hindrances to the swift implementation of Trump’s agenda arises from a multitude of lawsuits across various jurisdictions. Conservative law professor Josh Blackman suggested that Democratic-led states seeking victories in court may find better odds at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Richmond, Virginia. Filing lawsuits in Maryland, which has a federal court dominated by Democratic appointees, could enhance their chances of success.
Democratic Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown expressed readiness to fund federal litigation in preparation for lawsuits that may impact the rights of Maryland residents, such as potential nationwide abortion restrictions under the Trump administration. The 4th Circuit, with its Democratic majority during Trump’s first term, made significant decisions including blocking the travel ban and upholding gun control laws while ruling against Republican-backed voting restrictions.
Another appealing venue for litigation could be the federal court in Massachusetts, where the state’s Democratic attorney general, Andrea Campbell, has indicated preparedness for legal battles. Appeals from Massachusetts’ federal courts reach the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Boston, which stands out as the only regional federal appeals court without any Trump appointees and a majority of judges appointed by Democrats.
A spokesperson for Campbell emphasized Massachusetts as a crucial venue for addressing potential legal violations, underscoring the presence of thoughtful judges in federal courts. The diverse landscape of federal courts across different states presents litigants with strategic options for seeking favorable outcomes in legal battles against the government.
Nate Raymond in Boston contributed to this report, with editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Alistair Bell.
