The federal judiciary’s latest policy, designed to tackle the issue of “judge shopping,” has raised eyebrow as it seems to sidestep the types of cases that initially provoked Chief Justice John Roberts to address this problem.
As detailed by legal correspondents Michael Shapiro and Lauren Castle, the Judicial Conference announced the policy on March 12, characterizing it as a means to “limit the ability of litigants to effectively choose judges in certain cases.” The strategies detailed within this policy are specifically aimed at randomizing the assignment of lawsuits that “seek to bar or mandate state or federal actions.”
Such a change would, in theory, make it increasingly difficult to select specific judges in contentious cases targeting federal laws and regulations. However, as described in a previous report, the approach appears to be narrowly focused on lawsuits of a political nature with national scope.
The guidelines did not tackle the issue of judge shopping within the spheres of patent or bankruptcy litigation directly. The new policy contrasts with previous public commments made by Chief Justice Roberts, who had voiced concerns about forum shopping in patent litigation, particularly in areas like the Eastern District of Texas.
The policy’s perceived focus on political lawsuits potentially eludes a substantial proportion of the problematic cases which were likely the genesis for Roberts’ original concerns. This selective tackling of judge shopping incidents suggests more comprehensive measures may be required to adequately address the problem in all its forms.
Whether these measures will usher in broader reforms to address judge shopping concerning other types of lawsuits remains to be seen. Legal professionals, particularly those working with cases of an international scale, will undoubtedly have an eye on these developments and the possible implications for their practice.
For more details on this policy and its potential impacts on the legal profession, see the full article on Bloomberg Law.