WASHINGTON — The practice of “judge-shopping” may become less prevalent following a policy change made by the federal judiciary. The U.S. Judicial Conference has approved a new policy that seeks to assign cases seeking to block state or federal policies in federal district courts randomly from a larger pool of judges. This move aims to address concerns regarding the ability of lawyers to choose judges who may be sympathetic to their cause.
The case involving the abortion pill mifepristone highlighted how lawyers might exploit the assignment of judges in the 94 federal districts. Some districts have small sub-divisions where there may be only one judge available for selection. This allows lawyers to strategically choose a judge based on their anticipated bias or alignment with their clients’ interests.
The increase in nationwide injunctions being issued in recent years has raised concerns regarding the issue of “judge-shopping.” During the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, it has become a common occurrence for a district court judge to freeze a nationwide policy on various issues such as immigration or Covid-19 vaccine mandates. This phenomenon has led to the filing of many such cases in specific districts, like Texas, where lawyers perceive a favorable judicial environment.
The policy change aims to mitigate this problem by introducing random assignment of judges from a larger pool in cases involving challenges to national or statewide policies. Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who serves on the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and chairs the Judicial Conference’s executive committee, highlighted the need to consider the broader implications of such cases beyond local interests. He stated that when the stakes of a case extend beyond local boundaries, it makes more sense to randomly assign judges from a larger pool to ensure fairness and impartiality.
While the new policy will not prevent lawsuits from being filed in districts where judges as a whole have a certain approach or bias, it attempts to mitigate the selection of judges based on their anticipated rulings. For example, in the Northern District of Texas, where most judges are Republican appointees and their decisions are reviewed by the conservative-majority 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, lawsuits may still be filed. However, the random assignment of judges from a larger pool may introduce a more diverse and balanced approach.
This policy change has significant implications for the legal landscape and the potential future trends related to judicial proceedings. By reducing the ability of lawyers to strategically select judges, it promotes a more fair and impartial judicial system. This move aligns with ongoing efforts to depoliticize the courts and ensure equal access to justice.
Furthermore, it raises the question of whether random assignment of judges should extend beyond cases involving challenges to state or federal policies. The issue of judge-shopping extends beyond these specific types of cases, and the implementation of random assignment may further enhance the credibility and fairness of the judicial process.
In the current political landscape, where legal battles are increasingly shaping public policy and decision-making, the need for a neutral and independent judiciary is paramount. The policy change made by the U.S. Judicial Conference is a step in the right direction to address concerns and strengthen the integrity of the judicial system.
Looking ahead, it is crucial for the legal industry to further explore reforms and initiatives that bolster transparency, accountability, and diversity within the judiciary. Engaging in ongoing discussions and collaborations to assess and improve the judicial selection process will ensure the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of the legal system.
In conclusion, the recent policy change by the federal judiciary to randomly assign judges in cases involving challenges to state or federal policies is a significant step towards curbing the practice of judge-shopping. It aims to promote fairness, impartiality, and the depoliticization of the judicial system. This move opens up opportunities for discussions and reforms to strengthen the integrity of the judiciary and ensure equal access to justice in the future.