Chief U.S. District Judge David Godbey of the Northern District of Texas has announced that he will not be following a policy adopted by the judiciary’s top policymaking body that aimed to curtail the practice of “judge shopping.” This policy required random assignment of judges for cases challenging federal or state laws, but in response to a letter from Democratic U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer urging implementation of the new policy, Godbey has decided against it. This decision is significant because the federal court in Texas has become a favored destination for conservatives suing to block President Joe Biden’s agenda.
The policy implemented by the U.S. Judicial Conference on March 12 aimed to ensure that cases challenging federal or state laws are randomly assigned judges throughout a federal district rather than staying in the specific division or courthouse where the case was initially filed. This policy was intended to disrupt the tactic used by conservative litigants of filing cases in small divisions in Texas’ federal districts with judges appointed by Republican presidents who often rule in their favor on issues like abortion, immigration, and gun control. Following pushback from Senate Republicans and conservative judges, it was clarified that the policy was discretionary for each district court to decide how to implement it.
In a letter to Schumer, Godbey explained that after a meeting with other judges in his district, they had reached a consensus not to make any changes to their case assignment process at that time. The Northern District of Texas has 11 active judges divided into seven divisions with most judges in Dallas, but smaller divisions like Amarillo, Fort Worth, and Lubbock having only one or two active judges. This decision not to implement the new policy could have a significant impact on future cases challenging federal or state laws within the district and could continue to allow for judge shopping practices to occur.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case arising from one of these smaller courts in the Northern District of Texas, where U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, suspended approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. The Supreme Court allowed the pill to remain on the market while considering the appeal, and during the arguments, the justices signaled that they were unlikely to uphold restrictions. This case highlights the potential consequences of judge shopping and the impact it can have on legal decisions related to controversial or contentious issues.
The decision by Chief U.S. District Judge David Godbey of the Northern District of Texas not to follow the policy adopted by the judiciary’s top policymaking body indicates the ongoing debate and controversy surrounding judge shopping practices. This decision could have far-reaching implications for cases challenging federal or state laws within the district and raises questions about the fairness and impartiality of the judicial system. The Supreme Court’s involvement in a case arising from a smaller court within the Northern District of Texas further underscores the significance of this issue and the need for clarity and consistency in legal procedures and practices across federal districts. The decision not to implement the new policy aimed at curbing judge shopping practices could have long-lasting effects on future legal proceedings within the district and beyond.
