Governor Shapiro’s “19 Wins” Claim Is Political Messaging — Not Legal Reality

FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFUL, JOSH SHAPIRO, TRIPS ON HIS DICK WITH THESE CLAIMS

Governor Josh Shapiro recently claimed:

“I know how to take this President to court and win… I’ve taken him to court 19 times in his first 12 months in office. We’ve won every single time.”

The statement is rhetorically powerful — but legally misleading. A closer examination shows that the claim relies on inflated counting methods, procedural rulings, and administrative disputes rather than major courtroom victories against presidential authority.

What Shapiro describes as “wins” are largely technical legal actions with limited national significance.

Here is what the record actually shows.

1. The “19 wins” claim lacks independent verification

No major court record, legal database, or neutral reporting confirms that Governor Shapiro achieved nineteen final court victories against presidential policies within a single year.

The number appears to be a political tally that likely includes:

• multi-state lawsuits Pennsylvania merely joined

• preliminary injunction requests

• temporary restraining orders

• settlements

• policy changes that made cases moot

• ongoing litigation counted as victories

In modern political litigation, both parties routinely count these procedural outcomes as “wins,” but they are not final judicial rulings.

A temporary court order is not the same as a decisive legal victory.

2. Many of the cases were funding disputes, not constitutional showdowns

The bulk of Pennsylvania’s litigation under Shapiro has centered on:

• federal funding freezes

• grant disputes

• regulatory interpretation challenges

• administrative rulemaking disagreements

• program implementation conflicts

These cases typically involve technical questions of administrative law — not sweeping constitutional battles over presidential power.

Even when Pennsylvania prevailed, the result often amounted to:

• restored funding

• delayed implementation of policy

• agency reconsideration

These are routine federal-state disputes, not historic courtroom defeats of a president.

3. Some “wins” occurred because the federal government changed course

Several cases cited by Shapiro’s office were resolved when federal agencies:

• released funding

• modified rules

• withdrew policies

• made litigation unnecessary

Courts frequently dismiss such cases as moot once the dispute disappears.

Calling this a courtroom “win” stretches the ordinary meaning of victory.

The government adjusting policy is not the same as losing a constitutional challenge.

4. Multi-state lawsuits inflate the appearance of success

Many of the legal challenges Pennsylvania joined were coordinated multi-state actions led by coalitions of attorneys general.

In these cases:

• Pennsylvania was one of many participants

• outcomes cannot be attributed to Shapiro alone

• the state often played a supporting role

Counting every coalition case as a personal victory exaggerates the governor’s legal record.

5. The claim blends two different roles to enhance credibility

Shapiro’s statement deliberately merges:

• his prior experience as Attorney General

• litigation activity as Governor

But the “19” figure refers to actions taken during his governorship, not his tenure as attorney general. His earlier record against federal policy was smaller and spread over years.

The structure of the statement creates a stronger impression of a sustained record than the facts support.

6. State litigation against presidents is routine — not extraordinary

Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration frequently during his first term.Republican attorneys general did the same under Presidents Obama and Biden.

This strategy is now a standard political tool used by states to challenge federal policy.

Shapiro’s actions reflect this broader trend — not a uniquely successful legal campaign.

The Bottom Line

Governor Shapiro’s claim creates the impression of sweeping courtroom victories against presidential power. The reality is more limited:

• The “19 wins” figure is unverified and likely inflated.

• Many cases were procedural or administrative disputes.

• Some outcomes resulted from policy changes, not court judgments.

• The legal significance of most cases was modest.

• The claim functions primarily as political messaging.

Pennsylvania may have achieved practical administrative outcomes in some disputes, but portraying those routine legal actions as decisive courtroom victories misrepresents their significance.

Public officials should distinguish between political talking points and meaningful legal achievements. The difference matters.