The discussion around judicial independence witnessed an intense exchange at a recent Federalist Society convention, when Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones criticized attacks on her circuit’s judges, particularly taking aim at law professor Stephen Vladeck. Judge Jones, appointed by President Reagan, labeled these critiques as “unsavory,” accusing certain academics, including Vladeck, of besieging judges in her circuit with relentless criticism. Her comments were made during a panel discussion on the first day of the convention, which represents a substantial gathering of conservative lawyers. Judge Jones referred to these criticisms as akin to “attacks on the rule of law.” You can read more about the exchange in the original article.
A large portion of these criticisms pertain to the practices in the Northern District of Texas where litigants can engage in judge-shopping by filing cases that go before a particular judge within single-judge divisions. These divisions have become focal points for conservative litigants challenging Biden administration policies, with cases primarily heard by judges appointed by the Trump administration.
Vladeck, who has recently transitioned to Georgetown Law from the University of Texas, argued that any congressional measures to curtail judge-shopping practices should not be seen as a threat to judicial independence. Judge Jones suggested that Vladeck should instead focus on similar case filings within the Ninth and D.C. Circuits by liberal litigants.
During the panel, the tension escalated as Judge Jones remarked that preferences for particular judges have been present since “the dawn of judging,” pointing out that criticisms about judge-shopping didn’t necessarily emerge from the litigants themselves. Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit had upheld lower court decisions challenged based on these criticisms.
Vladeck attempted to alleviate the tension with a humorous suggestion to “just go get a beer,” but was met with Judge Jones presenting a stack of papers—comprising printed copies of Vladeck’s writings and tweets—and accusing him of personal attacks. She raised concerns about the safety implications for judges like Matthew Kacsmaryk (who is under protection following a death threat) as a consequence of such discourse.
Amidst the heated dialogue, Vladeck maintained that he never insinuated any lack of ethical behavior by the attorneys or questioned Judge Kacsmaryk’s qualifications. Instead, he views the conservative-leaning lawsuits filed within these divisions as a significant trend deserving scrutiny.
The panel discussion, moderated by Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho, appointed by President Trump, was characterized by references to a perceived “war on the judiciary” where judges are ostracized for rendering unpopular decisions. The dialogue spotlighted growing concerns over judicial accountability processes and the proposal for transparency in amicus brief financial backers, areas where Judge Jones also voiced criticism.