The federal judiciary on Tuesday announced a policy shift that would require the assignation of random judges in civil cases that have statewide or national implications to avoid "judge shopping."
The move is part of an effort to address widespread concerns in single-judge divisions. The policy-making body for the federal courts, the Judicial Conference of the United States, said that district courts may continue to assign cases to a single-judge division if those cases do not seek to ban or mandate state or federal actions through declaratory judgment or injunctive relief.
Federal Judiciary Announces Policy Shift
However, when random assignments are required, the case will be assigned to a judge within the same judicial district. In a statement, the secretary of the conference, Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., said that the random case-assignment policy would deter judge shopping and the assignment of cases based on the perceived merits or abilities of a particular judge.
He added that the policy shift promotes the impartiality of proceedings and bolsters public confidence in the federal judiciary. The particular issue of judge shopping first gained national attention following the filing of a lawsuit seeking to revoke federal approval of the abortion medication mifepristone in a division with just one judge, according to the Washington Post.
The attorney general's office and conservative groups in Texas have also looked to single-judge divisions as the places to challenge President Joe Biden's policies on immigration and the environment, among other issues.
On the other hand, the Biden administration as well as organizations such as the American Bar Association have expressed concerns about judge shopping in the past. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also highlighted the issue in his 2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.
A professor at Fordham Law School, Bruce Green, welcomed the policy shift of the federal judiciary. He said that it was highly problematic to have a party that is able to choose the single judge that they want to preside in a particular case.
The Issue of "Judge-Shopping"
A CNN legal analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, Steve Vladeck, said that the issue is not just that the previous policy allows plaintiffs to effectively choose their judge. He argued that it also undermines public faith in the integrity of the judiciary for the courts to stand idly by, said CNN.
Vladeck noted that the policy shift suggests that the federal judiciary agrees that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton said that the increasing prevalence of nationwide injunctions partially drove the policy change. He also noted that there are still benefits for cases that have no nationwide or state-wide implications to be kept in local divisions.
One particular case that highlighted the issue was the Texas lawsuit that was filed by anti-abortion activists. They sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2022 and sought to overturn the approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.
The case was handled by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, who is an outspoken opponent of the healthcare procedure. The judge, who is the sole federal judge in Amarillo, agreed with the plaintiffs that the drug was "unsafe." He invalidated the FDA's 23-year-old approval of mifepristone, according to the New York Times.
