Single-judge divisions in federal courts have given rise to a concerning trend known as judge-shopping, where plaintiffs purposefully launch a lawsuit in a division based on the perceived favorability of its judge. This issue is widespread, affecting at least 81 divisions nationwide, where just one or two judges preside over all the division’s cases.
A stark example of this is the Waco Division of the US District Court for the Western District of Texas. Here, the arrival of Judge Alan Albright, known for his pro-patent holder stance, led to a sudden influx of patent cases. This trend escalated after Albright actively promoted Waco as a venue with a patent-savvy judge, promising local rules designed to reduce time to trial and favor plaintiffs, as noted in this article.
In keeping with his promises, Albright swiftly implemented new local rules, announced a policy of denying defendants’ requests to stay, and demonstrated a reluctance to grant motions for summary judgment or requests to transfer cases outside of the Waco Division. The upshot was a dramatic surge in patent lawsuits in the Division, to the point that by 2021, Albright was hearing 25% of all the country’s patent cases, according to statistics.
However, the issue of judge-shopping extends beyond the field of patent litigation. Similar tactics have been observed in cases challenging federal policies. For instance, parties critiquing the Biden administration have shown a preference for single-judge divisions in the Northern District of Texas and the Western District of Louisiana. Alternatively, those opposing Republican policies have favoured one-judge divisions in the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of California.
The reality of judge-shopping impacts far more than the case at hand. It undermines venue rules designed to protect defendants from the hardship of litigating in inconvenient forums and creates imbalanced precedents. This concentration of power is a direct affront to the separation of powers principle and threatens to undermine both impartiality and public confidence. Even the Department of Justice has raised concerns, calling for a federal rule mandating random assignment of cases within districts in a recent letter.
While enacting new federal rules involves a lengthy approval process, local jurisdictions could take measures into their own hands. Implementing rules which redistribute cases filed in divisions with a limited number of judges could address this issue head-on. These could include random distribution, as has been implemented recently in Waco Division, showing promise in reducing the number of filings.
The challenge of this apparent manipulation through predictable assignments in single-judge divisions is clear. If districts take the lead in addressing this issue, they can help restore the balance and ensure fairer conditions for all litigants.