Plaintiffs in high-stakes cases have been able to cherry-pick sympathetic judges in federal courts, particularly in cases challenging abortion rights and immigration policy. The federal judiciary’s policymaking body has called for random assignment of big civil cases to curb this judge shopping practice in 94 federal district courts. However, two courts in Texas, a popular venue for such cases, have decided not to implement this guidance, prompting Senate leaders Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell to introduce legislation to address the issue.
Senator Schumer’s bill aims to end the targeted form of judge shopping where plaintiffs strategically file in small divisions with one or two judges. On the other hand, Senator McConnell’s bill focuses on limiting the power of a district court judge to issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal policy nationwide. The bills take different approaches to eradicate the pursuit of sympathetic judges by savvy litigants, with McConnell’s bill also setting new limits on where certain cases can be filed.
Despite the unclear prospects of either bill becoming law, bipartisan awareness on Capitol Hill regarding the issue of judge shopping has been viewed as a positive development. The acknowledgment by two senators with differing views that there is a need to address this issue is seen as a step in the right direction by legal experts. The bills aim to prevent litigants from choosing the judge who decides their case, reinforcing the system of justice to be fair and impartial.
