Plaintiffs in high-stakes cases have often been able to cherry-pick sympathetic judges in some federal courts, particularly in cases challenging abortion rights and immigration. The federal judiciary’s policymaking body recently called for an end to this practice by making the assignment of major civil cases random in all 94 federal district courts. However, two courts in Texas have refused to implement this guidance, leading to the Senate leaders Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell introducing legislation to address judge shopping. Schumer’s bill aims to end targeted judge shopping where plaintiffs strategically file in small divisions with one or two judges, while McConnell’s bill seeks to limit the power of a single district court judge to issue nationwide injunctions.
Schumer’s bill aligns with the Judicial Conference’s guidance to end the perverted justice system that allows for judge shopping. His bill would eliminate the ability of plaintiffs to choose their judge through strategic filing in single-judge divisions. On the other hand, McConnell’s bill does not address concerns about plaintiffs who file in single-judge divisions. Instead, it aims to limit the reach of district court rulings to the parties in the case or similar parties within the district. This would prevent federal policies from being blocked nationwide by a single district court judge.
The issue of judge shopping has drawn increased attention, especially after a national abortion-rights case was brought before Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, an outspoken opponent of abortion. Many have criticized judge shopping as undermining the legitimacy of the judiciary. Legal experts believe that legislation could help reinforce the consensus that judges should not be chosen by litigants. While some believe that nationwide injunctions should be limited, others think that they should not be completely eliminated as proposed in McConnell’s bill.
President Trump’s policies faced numerous nationwide injunctions, leading to criticism from Republicans about the power of unelected judges overriding the political branches. Schumer’s bill focuses on addressing judge shopping in single-judge divisions, as suggested by the Judicial Conference, while McConnell’s bill aims to limit the impact of district court rulings on a nationwide scale. Both bills are currently being considered in Congress, with Schumer’s bill having more co-sponsors at the time of introduction.
Regardless of whether either bill becomes law, bipartisan acknowledgment of the issue of judge shopping is seen as a positive development on Capitol Hill. While there are differing views on the best approach to address judge shopping and nationwide injunctions, the fact that these issues are being discussed among senators is considered a step in the right direction. The outcome of the bills and their impact on the federal court system remains to be seen.
