The United States federal judiciary announced on Tuesday a significant policy overhaul designed to dismantle the tactic of “judge shopping,” a practice commonly employed by state attorneys general, activist groups, and corporations. These entities have been known to file legal challenges against government regulations in jurisdictions known for their sympathetic judges, who were almost guaranteed to preside over their cases. This strategy has been particularly leveraged to impede significant aspects of President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda.
Implemented by the Judicial Conference, the top policy-making body of the U.S. judiciary, this reform comes after heightened pressure from Democratic legislators and other advocates to abolish a method predominantly utilized by conservative factions. These groups have historically targeted smaller courthouses, notably in Texas, to ensure their cases are assigned to judges with a track record of rulings that obstruct Biden’s initiatives on immigration, firearms regulation, and LGBTQ+ rights.
The revised policy mandates that lawsuits aimed at overturning state or federal legislation be randomly assigned to judges across a federal district, rather than being limited to specific courthouses or divisions. Jeffrey Sutton, U.S. Circuit Judge and the newly appointed chair of the Judicial Conference’s executive committee, cited the excessive issuance of national and statewide injunctions as a key factor prompting this change.
Randy Crane, the chief judge of Texas’ Southern District, acknowledged the policy but indicated it posed questions requiring resolution before its enactment. He suggested the timing and nature of the policy appear to be a reaction to judicial decisions that have run counter to particular political interests.
The practice of nationwide injunctions, where a single judge can halt the enforcement of new regulations across the country, has been critiqued for its potential to skew the legal landscape. The initiative to distribute cases more broadly among judges seeks to counteract this issue, a move Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has praised for its potential to reintroduce fairness and justice into the legal system.
The strategy of judge shopping has been under scrutiny, with calls for reform from the Biden administration, Democratic legislators, and the American Bar Association. This concern has been driven by lawsuits initiated in Texas’ unique judicial districts, known for their conservative-leaning judges, by figures such as Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton.
The issue of judge shopping drew national attention with a lawsuit aimed at halting the approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, spearheaded by conservative litigants in Amarillo’s single-judge division. The case, presided over by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee and former conservative Christian legal activist, has escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Moreover, companies and business groups have increasingly selected these courts for challenging Biden administration policies or promoting Republican-favored positions. A Reuters analysis revealed that at least 27 lawsuits by such entities have been filed in Texas since Biden’s inauguration, with significant cases being assigned to judges known for their conservative rulings, highlighting the strategic importance of venue selection in litigation.