In a recent development, federal judicial officials have decided not to advance efforts aimed at curbing judge-shopping, a decision that follows significant opposition from Republican lawmakers poised to take control of the White House and Congress. This comes after Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) reported receiving strong indications from the Administrative Office of the US Courts that no rule requiring random case assignments would be pursued, as detailed in a report by Bloomberg Law.
Judge-shopping involves litigants strategically filing cases in courts where they believe the assigned judge will be favorable to their arguments. Federal court policy-making body, the Judicial Conference, had previously issued nonbinding guidance aimed at deterring such practices. However, this move faced swift resistance from congressional Republicans who viewed it as an overreach.
Rep. Roy, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, had threatened to vote against legislation intended to add more trial court judges unless this effort to mandate randomized case assignments was abandoned. This legislative threat appeared to play a critical role in the judiciary’s reconsideration of the measure, with Roy describing conversations with judiciary officials as progressing positively.
The issue of judge-shopping has been particularly notable in Texas, where US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, based in Amarillo, consistently sees his docket filled with cases brought by conservative litigants. The Northern District of Texas, however, has maintained its existing case assignment policies, resisting changes suggested by federal guidance.
While the Judicial Conference’s advisory committee on civil rules has considered crafting a binding rule against judge-shopping, there remains skepticism among some of its members about the judiciary’s authority to mandate such a change without overstepping its bounds. Discussions continue to unfold around this contentious issue as federal judicial policies align with legislative expectations.