Plaintiffs in high-stakes federal cases have been accused of judge shopping, including in cases challenging abortion rights and immigration policy. The federal judiciary has called for the assignment of civil cases to be random in all 94 federal district courts. However, two courts in Texas have chosen to continue business as usual, prompting Senate leaders Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell to introduce legislation to address the issue. Schumer’s bill would prevent plaintiffs from selecting their judge, while McConnell’s bill aims to limit the power of a single district court judge to issue nationwide injunctions and block federal policy.
The issue of judge shopping has led to scrutiny of cases being assigned to judges in small divisions with strong opinions. For example, an abortion-rights case was heard by Judge Kacsmaryk, an outspoken opponent of abortion, in the Northern District of Texas’s Amarillo Division. Many legal experts have argued that judge shopping undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary. Legislation could help reinforce the consensus that judges should not be chosen by litigants and add mechanisms to enforce this principle.
While some believe that nationwide injunctions should be eliminated altogether, others argue that the issue lies in the frequency of such injunctions rather than their existence. President Trump’s administration faced numerous challenges through nationwide injunctions, leading to criticism from Republicans who claimed that unelected judges were overruling the political branches. Schumer’s bill focuses on single-judge divisions as the most egregious form of judge shopping, while McConnell’s bill seeks to limit the scope of district-court rulings and set new limits on where cases can be filed.
The prospects for either bill becoming law are uncertain, although Schumer’s bill has garnered more support than McConnell’s. Regardless of the outcome, bipartisan awareness on Capitol Hill regarding the issue of judge shopping is seen as a positive development. The acknowledgment by senators from opposing parties that there is a problem that needs to be addressed is considered a good first step. The debate surrounding judge shopping and nationwide injunctions is likely to continue as lawmakers work to find a solution that balances the need for fair and impartial judicial proceedings with concerns about judicial overreach.
