On Tuesday, the federal judiciary department of the United States announced a policy to prevent "judge shopping." State attorneys general, activists, and companies extensively use this practice to file lawsuits challenging government policies in courthouses where they can predict the judges hearing their cases.
Resetting Democratic Strategies?
The policy, ratified by the U.S. Judicial Conference, was significantly endorsed by Democratic legislators and has led to the blocking of vital parts of Democratic President Joe Biden's agenda in court.
Previously, the local court rules permitted plaintiffs to primarily target smaller courthouses in Texas, effectively allowing them to handpick judges who consistently provided rulings that impeded Biden's policies on diverse issues such as immigration, gun control, and LGBTQ rights.
Random Judge Assignation Commenced
To remedy this issue, the fresh judiciary policy demanded that lawsuits aiming to prevent state or federal laws be randomly assigned a judge across the federal district. This unprecedented system replaces the previous convention where judges heard the legal petition only in particular courthouses or divisions within the district.
U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton - the newly chosen head of the Judicial Conference's executive committee - confirmed that the dramatic change was triggered by the "abundance of national, statewide injunctions" handed down by judges in such cases.
Freedom from Political Bias?
Randy Crane, notable as the Chief Judge of Texas' Southern District, claimed the Judiciary Conference's policy necessitates answers before courts can initiate it effectively. He also hinted that the timing "seems to be a response to decisions adversarial to certain political interests."
Strategic Calculus: What's Next?
Persistent objections from the judiciary to suppress such practices by the Biden administration, Democratic legislators, and the American Bar Association result from alarms raised over lawsuits filed in single-judge jurisdictions in Texas. Notably, these objections have been made by Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton and others challenging government policies.
Texas' federal courts have especially equipped Republican activists as its four districts are separated into 27 divisions, the smallest of which have one or two judges assigned to hear most cases. The selection of judges in the small federal courthouses such as Fort Worth, Amarillo, or Lubbock are majorly Republican appointees.
Professor of Law at the University of Texas Stephen Vladeck stated that calculated decisions are becoming more decisive as "the polarization of the federal bench has increased the friendliness of certain forums."
Abortion Pill Case
Underlining this issue, a lawsuit was filed by conservative litigants seeking the suspension of the abortion pill mifepristone before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. Judge Kacsmaryk passed the order in April, and the U.S. Supreme Court, considering an appeal in the case, had allowed the pill in the market, with a hearing date set for March 26.
Litigant Companies' Tactics
Recently, companies such as Humana and SpaceX and a range of trade groups adopted this strategy to challenge Biden administration policies or promote popular views among Republicans.
Research has indicated at least 27 lawsuits by such companies and business groups since Biden took office were filed in Texas' smaller federal courthouses. In the early stages of these cases, some industry groups have already found success using this strategy. In striking down a National Labor Relations Board rule for any company to be an employer of certain contracts, U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker sided with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Tyler, Texas.
Barker is one of the two Trump appointees designated to hear all civil cases filed in Tyler as per the local order.
RELATED TOPIC: House Endorses Immigration Reform, Cites Slain Georgia Student Laken Riley as Catalyst
