Plaintiffs will no longer be able to choose which judge hears their case due to a policy announced this week that will enforce random judge selection in civil suits that pertain to national legislation. The policy will limit the practice of “judge-shopping” — a tactic long utilized by litigants to effectively guarantee favorable outcomes, according to Politico.
Prior to the policy’s announcement, plaintiffs have been able to cherry-pick judges sympathetic to their cause, but the new policy will enforce random judge selection in cases involving national and state-wide policy implementation. This move, hailed as a win by Democrats, aims to promote impartiality and reduce bias in the court systems.
“Judge-shopping” has long been utilized by Republicans, who pick single-judge judicial districts with conservative inclinations. Random judge selection will not be geographically restricted and judges will be chosen randomly from any of the 94 federal judicial districts.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized the new policy, calling it “half-baked ‘guidance’ that just does Washington Democrats’ bidding," according to NBC News.
McConnell and other Republicans have urged judges nationwide to resist the policy, claiming it will “shut down access to justice in the venues favored by conservatives.”
Texas has long been the site of numerous “judge-shopping” incidents, where cases challenging the Biden administration’s federal policies were brought to sympathetic judges. The attempt to remove the abortion drug mifepristone from shelves was purposely seen in the town of Amarillo, where Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a conservative Trump-era appointee, was almost guaranteed to preside. The Supreme Court will consider the removal later this month.
Democrats also utilized “judge-shopping” during the Trump administration in New York and California, but the judge selection wasn’t as sure-fire as similar efforts in places such as Texas due to the districts being much larger with more available judges.
“It is your job to manage the caseload of your court according to the dictates of local circumstances and convention,” McConnell states in a letter to Chief Judge Reeves of Kentucky penned Thursday.
“We therefore hope and expect that you will continue to do what is in the interest of justice for litigants in your jurisdiction without regard to partisan battles in Washington, D.C. If at any time current law is insufficient to meet the needs of justice, you can be assured that Congress — and not the Judicial Conference — will make the relevant changes.”
