US Judicial Conference Policy Seeks to Limit Judge Shopping
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Judicial Conference announced a policy last week intended to limit “judge shopping” by activists trying to win rulings by judges likely to be biased in their favor.
Allegations of judge shopping have been lodged most commonly against state attorneys general, political activists and corporations in lawsuits to oppose federal and state laws.
Judge shopping refers to filing lawsuits in courts with a small number of judges most likely to rule for the plaintiffs. It has been a problem for the Biden administration.
Conservative activists typically file the lawsuits in Texas federal courts with only one or two judges to oppose Biden administration policies on immigration, gun control and LGBTQ+ rights.
In one example, conservative activists won a court order in Amarillo, Texas, last year suspending approval nationwide of the abortion pill mifepristone.
The order was issued by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in the single-judge division. The case is pending on appeal before the Supreme Court.
In another case, a Kacsmaryk ruling restored a Trump administration “Remain in Mexico” immigration policy. The Supreme Court later overturned Kacsmaryk’s decision but only after his order remained in effect for nearly a year.
On a lesser scale, Democratic activists used similar tactics during the Trump administration. They sometimes would seek injunctions in California and Washington courts to block Trump’s executive orders.
As a response to complaints from lawmakers and the American Bar Association, the U.S. Judicial Conference announced a policy that requires lawsuits seeking injunctions against enforcement of state or federal laws to be assigned randomly to judges within a federal district.
The policy bans the lawsuits from being filed in specific courthouses, divisions or in the larger district.
The U.S. Judicial Conference sets policies for the judiciary.
A spokesperson for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said in a statement the new policy “should not be viewed as impairing a court’s authority or discretion.”
“Rather, they set out various ways for courts to align their case assignment practices with the long-standing Judicial Conference policy of random case assignment,” the statement said.
U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who chairs the Judicial Conference’s executive committee, said the policy revision was necessary as a response to a “plethora of national, statewide injunctions” that reflect judge shopping.
The Judicial Conference is offering judges instruction on how to implement its guidance.
Democratic and Republican leaders responded differently to the policy revision.
It was welcomed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
He said the revised Judicial Conference policy would “update rules, level the playing field and bring more justice back into the justice system by finally putting an end to unscrupulous plaintiffs having the ability to choose their judge.”
He added that judge shopping “has given MAGA-right plaintiffs the ability to hijack and circumvent our federal judiciary by targeting courts that would all but guarantee a handpicked MAGA-right judge who would rule in their favor.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he hoped the Judicial Conference would reconsider, calling its policy an “unforced error” and “half-baked.” Other Senate Republicans issued statements agreeing with McConnell.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.
You can reach us at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and X.
We're proud to make our journalism accessible to everyone, but producing high-quality journalism comes at a cost. That's why we need your help. By making a contribution today, you'll be supporting TWN and ensuring that we can keep providing our journalism for free to the public.
Donate now and help us continue to publish TWN’s distinctive journalism. Thank you for your support!
