WASHINGTON – The U.S. Judicial Conference recently issued new guidance that aims to make “judge-shopping” more difficult in the federal judiciary, following criticism from prominent Republicans in Congress. This term refers to the practice of conservative lawyers strategically selecting judges with similar ideologies for their cases.
The guidance, approved on Tuesday, emphasizes that the new policies should not limit a court’s authority or discretion. Instead, they provide ways for courts to align their case assignment practices with the long-standing policy of random case assignment. The objective is to crack down on lawyers who engage in judge-shopping by randomly assigning cases that could potentially impact state or federal policies to a broader pool of district court judges.
This move comes in response to a high-profile case involving the abortion pill mifepristone. Anti-abortion rights activists filed a case challenging federal approval and ensured that it landed in a Texas court where a sympathetic judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, would oversee it. In the end, Judge Kacsmaryk ruled in their favor, and the case has now reached the Supreme Court.
To implement the new policy, judges will receive guidance from the Judicial Conference. Congressional Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have long criticized judge-shopping. Schumer argues that it allows plaintiffs aligned with the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement to manipulate and circumvent the federal judiciary by targeting courts that guarantee a handpicked MAGA-right judge who would rule in their favor.
However, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, among other Senate Republicans, expressed their opposition to the policy change. McConnell called it an “unforced error” by the Judicial Conference and urged them to reconsider.
As the Judicial Conference aims to address concerns around judge-shopping, the new policy seeks to ensure a fair and impartial judicial process. Random case assignments can help prevent the manipulation of the judicial system to secure favorable outcomes. Critics argue that judge-shopping undermines the integrity of the judiciary and perpetuates partisan biases in legal proceedings.
Moving forward, the Judicial Conference’s guidance provides a pathway for courts to align with the principle of random case assignment and uphold the authority of judges while thwarting attempts to cherry-pick favorable jurisdictions. This policy change represents a step towards greater transparency and fairness in the federal judiciary system.