In order to combat the issue of ‘judge-shopping’ within the judiciary system, the U.S. judiciary’s policy arm has issued an important guidance. This policy aims to encourage federal judges to assign all civil cases in a way that precludes litigants from deliberately choosing certain judges for their cases, in a practice colloquially termed ‘judge-shopping’.
The Judicial Conference announced this policy late last week, an expansion of its earlier announcement on March 12, which outlined a strengthening of its case assignment procedures.
The new policy dictates the random assignment of lawsuits which seek to block a state or federal action, effectively delegating these cases to any available judge within the court. This is seen to be a direct move to curb litigants who opt for filing requests for nationwide injunctions specifically in single-judge divisions, as a means to select a preferred judge.
The public statement made regarding this policy saw immediate response and attention from various corners of the U.S. legal system and beyond. You can find additional details about the announcement on the US Courts website.
In conclusion, this policy seeks to improve the standards of impartiality and fairness within the federal courts by eliminating ‘judge shopping’. This move is widely seen as a stride forward in maintaining the ethical conduct of the legal profession.