Reflections On The 2025-2026 Judicial Hellholes Report From The American Tort Reform Association – Ranking The Worst Jurisdictions For Defendants

Duane Morris Takeaways: The American Tort Reform Association ("ATRA") annually publishes its "Judicial Hellholes Report," focusing on litigation issues and identifying jurisdictions likely to have unfair and biased administration of justice. The ATRA recently published its 2025-2026 Report and this year there was a brand-new entry for the #1 position as the most challenging venue for defendants – the courts of Los Angeles. Readers can find a copy here and the executive summary here.

The Judicial Hellholes Report is an important read for corporate counsel facing class action litigation because it identifies jurisdictions that are generally unfavorable to defendants. The Report defines a "judicial hellhole" as a jurisdiction where judges in civil cases systematically apply laws and procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, generally to the disadvantage of defendants. The Report is a "must read" for anyone litigating class actions and making decisions about venue strategy.

The 2025-2026 Hellholes

In its recently released annual report, the ATRA identified eight jurisdictions on its 2025-2026 hellholes list – which, in order, include: (1) Los Angeles (with massive nuclear verdicts, abusive litigation practices, and predatory no-injury lawsuits); (2) New York City (at this spot for the second time in a row, with expansive theories of product liability for tech companies and lawsuit abuses); (3) South Carolina (particularly due to a bias against corporate defendants in asbestos litigation); (4) Louisiana (namely, with the coastal litigation trial which concluded in a nine-figure verdict and various political biases); (5) Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (for mass torts litigation); (6) St. Louis, Missouri (with focuses on junk science in the courtrooms and out-of-town ADA litigation); (7) Cook, Madison, and St. Clair Counties, Illinois (for baby formula and asbestos litigation); and (8) King County, Washington and the Washington Supreme Court (for junk science in the courtrooms and novel climate change litigation).

According to the ATRA's analysis, these venues are less than optimal for corporate defendants and often attract plaintiffs' attorneys, particularly for the filing of class action lawsuits. As a result, corporate counsel should take particular care if they encounter a class action lawsuit filed in one of these venues.

The "Watch List"

The ATRA also included six jurisdictions on its "Watch List" — up from only one on the previous list. These are listed in no precise order, and according to the Report, bear watching due to expansive liability and concerning trends. The Watch List selections include: Gwinnett, Fulton, and Cobb Counties in Georgia, after Georgia as a whole fell from the Hellholes list after significant reforms, these counties could remain problematic); Pennsylvania Supreme Court (which was previously listed in the Hellholes list with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and was moved to the Watch List after reforming some of the issues with forum shopping; Texas (with pro-plaintiff leanings and nuclear verdicts in trial courts); Michigan Supreme Court (which has yet to issue several high-profile, long-awaited decisions); Louisiana (on the watch list see how 2025 civil justice reforms impact the courts); and Kentucky (with regard to the trial court's large verdict awards).

The "Dishonorable Mentions"

The ATRA included a few jurisdictions on its "Dishonorable Mentions" list, for making unsound decisions, engaging in abusive practices, or other actions that "erode the fairness of a state's civil justice system." The venues on the list include: (i) the Fourth Circuit (views on public nuisance); (ii) a Colorado Court (due to problematic evidentiary decision); and (iii) Ohio Appellate Courts (which permitted unlimited noneconomic damages).

Points Of Lights

In addition, the ATRA recognized that several jurisdictions made significant positive improvements this year, highlighting decisions by a Colorado court that dismissed a medical monitoring damages theory, the Delaware Supreme Court, which rejected junk science, the Maine Supreme Court, as it declined to broaden the scope of public nuisance liability, a North Carolina court which addressed legislative authority to limit noneconomic damages, and the Utah Supreme Court, which eliminated "phantom damages" windfalls.

Implications For Employers

The Judicial Hellholes Report often mirrors the experience of companies in high-stakes class actions, as California, New York, South Carolina, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Illinois, and Washington are among the leading states where plaintiffs' lawyers file class actions. These jurisdictions are linked by class certification standards that are more plaintiff-friendly and more generous damages recovery possibilities under state laws.

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.