Allowing private parties in litigation to stack the deck in their favor through forum shopping is standard fare in the United States.  But not everyone realizes that public legislators engage in a similar exercise when they stack the deck in one party’s favor through “jurisdiction-stripping” or “jurisdiction-channeling” provisions.  Congress can strip federal courts of all or some of its jurisdiction, channel jurisdiction over a particular class of cases into one particular court, and even strip the U.S. Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction.  Understandably, this last category has received the most attention, as scholars are drawn to the penultimate conflict between the legislative and judicial branches.

Building upon this rich foundation, this Article pivots in the other direction.  It focuses on jurisdictional strips of judicial review over one specific type of action—administrative actions.  A recent example of congressional forum shopping for a federal appellate court more favorable to construction of a new natural gas pipeline provides a fruitful demonstration of the attendant risks associated with this unique subspecies of jurisdiction stripping.  By changing the rules of the game midstream, stripping all federal courts of any power to review agency approvals, and channeling jurisdiction from one inferior court to a coequal branch, Congress has tapped into its entire arsenal to effectuate a result for the benefit of a single party.  This Article refers to this practice as “administrative forum shopping.”  Such singular focus to the exclusion of historical principles reflects congressional motivations that negatively impact perceptions of the legitimacy of the institutions involved.  Furthermore, unlike most federal strips that retain state court forums to remedy injury, such practices completely foreclose any judicial remedy for those aggrieved by agency action and dictate a specific substantive outcome, implicating both Article III and due process concerns.  This Article concludes by demonstrating how such actions merit a deeper consideration of the nuanced relationship between jurisdiction stripping, jurisdiction channeling, and administrative law.