Earlier this week, the U.S. Judicial Conference announced a new policy aimed at combating ‘judge-shopping’. This policy involves a requirement for random case assignment among all judges in a district whenever a litigant seeks a national injunction in a single-judge division.
Judge-shopping, a practice where litigants attempt to have their legal cases heard by a specific judge who they perceive to be more favorable to their cause, can pose risks to the fairness and impartiality of the legal process. The new policy of random case assignment is designed to counteract this practice and reinforce the judiciary’s commitment to fairness and impartiality.
Feedback on this new policy has been mixed within the legal community. While many have praised it as a necessary step towards promoting equality and fairness within the judicial system, others have raised concerns about potential negative implications, including increased workload for judges and potential delays in case resolution.
At the same time, questions are being raised about the involvement of former federal judge Richard Posner in a wage lawsuit against him, adding to an already intense week of debate within the legal profession.