The Judicial Conference recently made a significant move by ordering districts to randomly assign judges to cases seeking national injunctions, an act that has drawn severe criticism from notable right-wing judges. This decision came as a solution to the problem of cynical actors exploiting opportunistic forums to challenge the operation of the entire federal government. An example of this manipulation was the nationwide banning of mifepristone when litigants against the Biden administration selectively sought reprieve in Amarillo, noticeably far away from the political storm in Washington D.C.
To curb these instances of forum shopping, the new rule mandates that cases seeking national or statewide injunctions must be assigned randomly to a judge from anywhere within the district, and not necessarily the one in closest proximity to the location of filing. While this rule seems fair in its proposition, it has triggered a significant backlash from conservative factions within the legal system. Reuters reported rigorous objections, including from Judges Edith Jones and James Ho.
The objections stem from various angles. Judge Jones, for instance, cited potential contradictions between the new policy and a federal statute that grants district courts the control of case allocation on their dockets. Judge Ho argued that if the motive was truly about controlling venue shopping, parallel reforms were needed around bankruptcy and patent dockets, which have been long-standing areas of concern.
Interestingly, the Western District of Texas had already introduced an order in 2022 assigning patent cases randomly across the district to handle the sudden surge in patent litigation. This indicates that local courts can effectively manage forum shopping when it comes to non-political cases. Nevertheless, the need for a national rule underscores the existence of bad faith actors within certain courts seeking to exploit the legal system for ominous ends.
In conclusion, despite the backlash, the new rule to randomly assign judges to cases aiming for national injunctions sparks fresh debates around balancing judicial independence, political influence within the legal system, and maintaining faith in the judicial process.