When the Judicial Conference announced its new rules to curb forum shopping last month, there was a strong implication that Chief Justice Roberts had a significant hand in creating these recommendations. The rules seemed to coincide with Roberts’s ongoing effort to restore faith in the federal courts.
The newly proposed regulations seek to clarify the judiciary’s commitment to a randomized judge assignment process. A more transparent process, the rules argue, would not only look fair but also help instill some much-needed belief in a branch of government currently struggling with public perception.
However, despite the careful grooming and packaging of the new policies, some judges appear to welcome controversy. The Judicial Conference made the new policy discretionary, thereby circumventing any complex questions about the scope of its authority. Still, they had designed the announcement in such a way that any critic would be reluctantly compelled to embrace these rules, lest they openly appear to be encouraging manipulation of the judicial system.
Despite these efforts, especially by conservatives like Roberts, critics forcefully rejected the idea and surprisingly took a stance supporting strategic litigation practices, commonly known as forum shopping. The defenses they put forth, like patent cases—an issue already addressed by policies similar to the new rules—underscores their stance against the fresh guidelines.
In an unexpected turn of events, the Northern District of Texas—a district with only a single judge appointed by a Democratic president—declared last Friday that it would not follow these new federal rules. This decision means that the district that most directly inspired the new rules won’t be benefiting from the guideline reform Roberts had hoped would bolster the credibility of the judiciary.