WASHINGTON — Legal battles against the Trump administration are intensifying, with New England becoming a notable battleground for those opposing its policies. Historically concentrated on the West Coast during Trump’s first term, lawsuits challenging his administration’s actions are increasingly frequent in the First Circuit, which encompasses Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.
Experts believe this shift to the First Circuit signifies strategic legal maneuvers, as this area boasts all-Democratic appointees at the appellate level, making it attractive for progressive litigants. “If you’re a progressive ... it would be malpractice to not go to the First Circuit,” remarked John Yoo, law professor at UC Berkeley and former George W. Bush administration official.
The statistics speak volumes about this trend. Among the 80 cases against Trump filed so far, more than ten have emerged from the First Circuit, according to Just Security’s litigation tracker. This uptick coincides with significant rulings from judges within this circuit blocking various Trump administration actions, including efforts to cut scientific funding, end birthright citizenship, and freeze federal funding.
Picking advantageous courts, known as forum shopping, is commonplace in legal circles, and the First Circuit has emerged as the focus for claims against the Trump administration. “The only thing that's novel about what is happening in the First Circuit is the attention it’s garnered,” noted Stephen Vladeck, Georgetown Law professor.
Legal filings are not arbitrary; they require connections to the jurisdiction through the individuals or entities involved. Therefore, lawyers assess their options to find jurisdictions where suits have the best chance of success. The importance of the appellate level cannot be understated—injunctions blocking federal actions are likely to remain effective until potentially overturned by the Supreme Court.
The appeal of the First Circuit lies not only with its politically aligned judges but also with the precedents established within it. Currently, all five active appeals judges were appointed by Democrats, four by President Biden, creating no openings for Trump appointees within this circuit.
Interestingly, during Trump’s first term, he attempted to shift the Ninth Circuit’s ideological balances without fully capturing it. Still, new appointees increased its overall ideological diversity. The First Circuit remains unique, as it is currently the only appellate circuit without judges from both political affiliations.
At the district court level, the judges overseeing cases similarly reflect the local political sentiments, predominantly aligning with Democrats. This has resulted in greater ease for state attorneys general and nonprofit entities seeking to challenge federal actions, as demonstrated by recent suits filed by Democratic AGs from New England states.
Besides the legal tactics, observers like Cecillia Wang, ACLU’s national legal director, weigh their litigation strategies based on their experiences with similar cases and jurisdictional advantages. Massachusetts, noted for its strong advocacy and legal community related to healthcare, immigration, and LGBTQ+ rights, produces ample cases targeting Trump’s policies.
Concurrently, Democratic state AGs are eager to challenge any new policies from the Trump administration and have initiated several multistate lawsuits, including cases launched from New England.
While strategy is certainly at play, public awareness is equally prioritized. The judicial process provides opportunities for judges to compel testimony from federal officials, shining light on administrative decisions. “The real power of the litigation was the storytelling,” said James Tierney, former Maine attorney general.
Meanwhile, another front of the Trump administration’s legal battles emerged as federal courts began hearing arguments concerning press access. The Associated Press filed suit against three members of Trump’s staff, arguing against their attempts to exclude AP journalists from presidential events.
This dispute, ignited by the administration’s attempt to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America,” raises questions about press freedoms and the First Amendment. The AP is defending its adherence to the conventional name, stressing its global audience and the constitutional issues at stake.
The White House, on the other hand, defends its actions by claiming access to the president is more privilege than right, creating friction between the administration and media outlets. The outcome of these legal battles could have repercussions not just for the administration but for press freedoms moving forward.
Legal experts suggest both current and future cases are deeply tied to the political dynamics surrounding the Trump administration, underlining the influence judiciary members hold on pivotal decisions. Federal judges, particularly those within the First Circuit during Trump’s tenure, have become central figures shaping the outcomes of major lawsuits.
The interrelationship of these events—the strategic filings of progressive lawsuits, rulings by Democrat-majority courts, and challenges to press freedoms—illustrates the contentious atmosphere defining the Trump administration’s legal narrative.
Continued scrutiny of these legal processes will shed light on how present actions influence both local and national policies, and whether courts favoring Democratic agendas will stand firm against potential Supreme Court interventions down the line.