I was delighted to see the Judicial Conference of the United States is acting to promote random case assignment in certain declaratory judgment and injunction cases. You can read the press release here.
It will be important to see the details, but as outlined, this policy change will ameliorate the consequences of forum-shopping in the federal courts, particularly when that forum-shopping allows plaintiffs to essentially select the judge who will hear the case. Allowing a plaintiff to select her own judge is inimical to the rule of law and brings disrepute on the judiciary.
To be clear, it is not the fault of the judge, who is open for business to anyone who files a complaint that meets the various jurisdictional and venue requirements. Similarly, it is hard to blame a plaintiff for trying to find the most advantageous place to sue. The duty of zealous advocacy may even require it. And even though there is an uneven distribution of single-judge divisions, I think the primary problem is not a partisan one–Republican state attorneys general seek national injunctions in friendly district courts, and Democratic state attorneys general seek national injunctions in friendly district courts, and I don't have to tell you where those are (the pattern holds in national injunction cases from the second half of the second Obama term to the present). Even so, the problem is greater in degree if a plaintiff is able to select a single judge.
