Washington, DC – The U.S. Judicial Conference unveiled new guidance aimed at curbing the practice of “judge-shopping” within the federal judiciary. This move comes amidst criticism from prominent Republicans in Congress, highlighting concerns about potential bias in case assignments.
“Judge-shopping” refers to the tactic of selecting a judge based on their ideological alignment, often seen in cases involving politically sensitive issues. The new policies, approved by the conference earlier this week, seek to promote random case assignment and prevent strategic forum choices.
Specifically, the policy calls for cases that could impact state or federal policies to be assigned to a broader pool of district court judges. This approach aims to deter lawyers from cherry-picking sympathetic judges in smaller court divisions, potentially influencing case outcomes.
One notable case that brought attention to “judge-shopping” involved the federal approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. Anti-abortion activists strategically filed their challenge in a Texas court to secure a favorable judge, raising concerns about fair and impartial adjudication.
In response to the new policy, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the practice of “judge-shopping,” asserting that it can undermine the integrity of the judiciary. On the other hand, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican lawmakers voiced concerns about the Judicial Conference’s decision, urging a reconsideration of the approach.
Moving forward, judges will receive guidance on aligning their case assignment practices with the conference’s emphasis on random assignment. The ultimate goal is to uphold the principles of fairness and impartiality in the judicial system, ensuring that justice is dispensed without bias or undue influence.