Dallas, Texas – The advisory body to the federal judiciary has recently issued guidelines to discourage the practice of “judge shopping,” a tactic used by attorneys to ensure their case is heard by a judge who aligns with their cause. While the guidelines are not binding, there is a call for federal courts in Texas to adopt them.
Judge shopping involves attorneys seeking out single-judge divisions within federal courts where the judge is likely to align with their ideology. This tactic is used to obtain favorable rulings and has become a significant issue, particularly in Texas. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been criticized for frequently filing lawsuits in single-judge divisions to advance his far-right agenda.
One example that sparked widespread discussion is a Texas suit by anti-abortion activists challenging the federal approval of the abortion medication mifepristone. The case was intentionally filed in Amarillo, ensuring it would be heard by a federal district judge with socially conservative views appointed by former President Donald Trump, Matthew Kacsmaryk. Unsurprisingly, Kacsmaryk ruled in favor of the anti-abortion plaintiffs, and the case has now reached the Supreme Court.
The practice of judge shopping is not limited to one side of the political spectrum. Both right-leaning and left-leaning attorneys utilize this tactic, undermining public trust in the judiciary. The assignment of cases is a crucial factor in maintaining a justice system based on fairness and impartiality.
In an effort to address this problem, the Judicial Conference of the United States has issued guidelines recommending that federal districts assign cases randomly for civil matters of national or statewide importance. They also encourage courts to make their case assignment procedures public. While these guidelines are not binding, their implementation could help restore confidence in the justice system.
However, a significant obstacle to completely eliminating judge shopping is the fact that each district is responsible for determining case assignments under federal law. A legal ban on the practice would require an act of Congress, which is unlikely to happen. Nevertheless, Texas districts have the opportunity to voluntarily adopt practices that make it harder to predict which judge will hear a case.
Trust in key public institutions in the United States has reached historic lows, and curbing judge shopping is a necessary step towards rebuilding confidence in the federal judiciary. It is not about political one-upmanship but rather establishing good governance that will repair the credibility of the justice system.
Readers are welcome to share their thoughts by submitting a letter to the editor, following the provided guidelines and submission process.