As the plaintiff, Trump chose it. As the BBC notes, the offending documentary was never shown in the US. Presumably they’ve chosen the venue where the supposed harm occurred, but as he’s scrambling desperately to avoid having to prove that harm occurred, who fucking knows, lol.
Afaik it’s typical in the US to file in a court that’s known to take the side of people or organizations similar to the plaintiff, or resolve similar cases in a manner beneficial to the plaintiff.
Yes, absolutely. There’s even a name for it. That certainly played no small part in the choice of venue when the plaintiffs were deciding where to file.
EDITED to add: I hadn’t known who the judge was when I wrote the above comments, but it turns out that this judge, who is a Trump appointee and a member of the Federalist Society, has now granted the emergency stay.
As the plaintiff, Trump chose it. As the BBC notes, the offending documentary was never shown in the US. Presumably they’ve chosen the venue where the supposed harm occurred, but as he’s scrambling desperately to avoid having to prove that harm occurred, who fucking knows, lol.
Afaik it’s typical in the US to file in a court that’s known to take the side of people or organizations similar to the plaintiff, or resolve similar cases in a manner beneficial to the plaintiff.
Yes, absolutely. There’s even a name for it. That certainly played no small part in the choice of venue when the plaintiffs were deciding where to file.
EDITED to add: I hadn’t known who the judge was when I wrote the above comments, but it turns out that this judge, who is a Trump appointee and a member of the Federalist Society, has now granted the emergency stay.
This is the order:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.116.0.pdf