The Federal Judiciary’s New Policy to Curb Judge-Shopping and Redistribute Cases
The policy-making body of the federal judiciary, The Judicial Conference of the United States, has recently announced new measures aimed at addressing the issue of “judge-shopping,” a strategy where litigants deliberately file lawsuits in particular courthouses to secure judges perceived as sympathetic to their arguments. This practice, which has been increasingly used for politically charged cases with far-reaching implications, has raised concerns regarding the integrity of the judiciary and the potential for biased decision-making.
Historically, judge-shopping was predominantly employed in patent cases; however, recent years have witnessed a significant surge in the use of this strategy for contentious, wide-ranging cases. These cases often involve conservative parties or Republican state attorneys general and have targeted federal policies on various subjects such as reproductive rights, immigration, gun safety, and environmental protection.
One notable example of this trend was the lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the medication abortion drug mifepristone, which was filed in the Amarillo Division of US District Court of the Northern District of Texas. This division is presided over by US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump who previously worked for a religious liberty legal organization. The lawsuit sought a nationwide order blocking the FDA policy, highlighting the potential implications of judge-shopping in shaping court decisions.
In response to these developments, The Judicial Conference of the United States announced a new policy designed to broaden the pool of judges who could be assigned to hear cases seeking state-wide or nationwide orders. Under this policy, cases would no longer be restricted to specific divisions and instead be subjected to a random selection process within the entire district court. For instance, a case like the one involving the abortion drug would have gone through the lottery system for the entire district court – which comprises 11 active judges and five senior judges – significantly reducing the likelihood of it being assigned to Judge Kacsmaryk.
The ramifications of this new policy extend beyond merely reducing the ability of plaintiffs to selectively choose sympathetic judges. Steve Vladeck, a News Finder legal analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, who has extensively studied these procedural developments, expressed his support for the policy change: “The problem is not just that this allows plaintiffs to effectively choose their judge; it also undermines public faith in the integrity of the judiciary for the courts to stand idly by. Today’s news suggests that the federal judiciary, if somewhat belatedly, agrees.”
US District Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who recently assumed the role of chair of The Judicial Conference’s executive committee, underscored the prevalence of nationwide injunctions as a factor driving this policy change. He acknowledged that there would still be cases with no such nationwide or state-wide impacts that could benefit from being kept in local divisions.
Sutton elaborated on this issue during a news conference: “The current issue relates to nationwide injunctions or statewide injunctions. So when it comes to those claims, it’s a little bit hard to say you need one division of one state to handle it – since by definition, it extends at a minimum throughout the state and possibly to the whole country.”
In the near future, a memo outlining the new policy will be circulated among district courts across the United States, with an expected implementation ramp-up period. By addressing judge-shopping and distributing cases more equitably, this policy change aims to restore public faith in the federal judiciary’s impartiality and ensure that decisions are based on the merits of the cases rather than the political leanings of individual judges.
