Federal Courts Adopt New Policy in Crackdown on ‘Judge Shopping’ Tactic

The Judicial Conference adopted a new policy at its biannual meeting whereby judges will be randomly assigned to cases.
Federal Courts Adopt New Policy in Crackdown on ‘Judge Shopping’ Tactic
File photo of a judge's gavel. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Katabella Roberts
Updated:
0:00

The federal court system’s policymaking arm is cracking down on so-called “judge shopping,” with officials adopting a policy on March 12 aimed at bolstering random case assignment.

The 26-member U.S. Judicial Conference adopted the new policy at its biannual meeting.

Under the policy, a judge will be randomly assigned to cases, even in areas where locally filed cases have previously been heard by a single judge. This effectively prevents a system that officials say allows state attorneys general, activists, and companies filing lawsuits challenging government policies to pick and choose their judges in some cases.

Known as “judge shopping,” the strategy typically means litigants ensure their cases are guaranteed to be heard by judges perceived to be sympathetic to their arguments.

The new policy covers all civil actions that seek to ban or mandate state or federal actions or policy, “whether by declaratory judgment and/or any form of injunctive relief,” officials said.

In such cases, judges would be assigned through a district-wide random selection process.

“Since 1995, the Judicial Conference has strongly supported the random assignment of cases and the notion that all district judges remain generalists,” Judge Robert Conrad, secretary of the Judicial Conference, said in a statement.

“The random case-assignment policy deters judge-shopping and the assignment of cases based on the perceived merits or abilities of a particular judge,” he continued. “It promotes the impartiality of proceedings and bolsters public confidence in the federal Judiciary.”

Cases are already assigned at random under plans in most of the nation’s 94 federal district courts. However, some plans assign cases to judges in the smaller division of the court where the case is filed. “In divisions where only a single judge sits, these rules have made it possible for a litigant to pre-select that judge by filing in that division,” officials said.

Mifepristone Case

Democrats, including President Joe Biden, have repeatedly pointed to the increasing number of national and statewide injunctions being issued by judges in various cases in recent years after they were filed in specific divisions.
They include a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the medication abortion drug mifepristone, which was filed in Amarillo, Texas, and went before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of President Donald Trump.

The Supreme Court put that ruling on hold and is hearing arguments on it later this month.

Democrats as well as the American Bar Association have also pointed to the multiple lawsuits filed by Texas in state courts seeking to block Biden administration policies relating to issues such as immigration, gun control, and other issues.

The latest policy change marks a clear win for Democrats as, going forward, such cases will instead go through a random selection process for the entire district court, limiting the chances of litigants attempting to put their case before a judge they may perceive as favorable.

However, during a press conference after the policy change was adopted, U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the newly appointed chair of the Judicial Conference’s executive committee, stressed that the decision was not made in response to Texas or any other specific state.

Mifepristone (Mifeprex), one of the drugs used in an abortion is displayed at the Women's Reproductive Clinic in Santa Teresa, N.M., on June 15, 2022. (Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images)
Mifepristone (Mifeprex), one of the drugs used in an abortion is displayed at the Women's Reproductive Clinic in Santa Teresa, N.M., on June 15, 2022. Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images

Schumer Attacks ‘MAGA-Right Plaintiffs’

“The idea behind this most recent amendment is to say we get the idea of having local cases resolved locally, but when the case is a declaratory judgment action, national injunction action, obviously, the stakes of the case go beyond that small town or that division,” he said.

“I actually think the story is about national injunctions,” Judge Sutton continued. “That’s been a new development the last 10 years, or maybe the last two or three administrations, where that has become a thing. It makes sense that some advocates are going to do the best by their clients, and you can understand how some of those pressures work depending on who’s running the administration.”

The policy announcement prompted praise from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who last year threatened congressional action if the Northern District of Texas did not introduce reforms aimed at preventing judge shopping.

“After nearly a year of sounding the alarm and calling for courts to act, I am pleased the Judicial Conference has finally taken action to 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,” Mr. Schumer said.

The senator went on to claim that the practice of so-called “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.”

Mr. Schumer added, “This anti-democratic practice has eroded Americans’ faith in the judicial system and undermined the rule of law. This new rule rebalances our court system and will go a long way to restoring public confidence in judicial rulings.”

Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Katabella Roberts
Katabella Roberts
Author
Katabella Roberts is a news writer for The Epoch Times, focusing primarily on the United States, world, and business news.