A federal judicial panel on Tuesday decided to wait to see how courts implement a new, discretionary policy that aims to curb "judge shopping" before considering whether a binding rule is necessary to halt a tactic used by litigants to steer cases challenging government policies to sympathetic judges.
The Biden administration and Democratic senators had urged the U.S. Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to adopt a rule that would require that cases seeking to block government policies be assigned to a random judge from throughout a federal district, not just a specific courthouse.
But U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg, the panel's chair, during a meeting in Denver, Colorado, said that before doing anything further, her committee planned to first assess the impact of the new policy that the Judicial Conference, the judiciary's top policymaking body, approved on March 12.
Under that policy, any lawsuit challenging federal or state laws would be assigned a judge randomly throughout a federal district rather than stay in the specific, smaller division, or courthouse, where the case was initially filed.
If implemented, that policy would disrupt a tactic used by conservative litigants of filing cases in small divisions in Texas' four federal districts whose one or two judges were appointed by Republican presidents and often rule in their favor on issues like abortion, immigration and gun control.
Following blowback from Senate Republicans and some conservative judges, judicial policymakers later clarified that the policy was discretionary and non-binding, leaving it to each district court to decide how to implement it.
Rosenberg said that her panel would keep the question of whether to adopt a binding, nationwide rule on its agenda but would first study whether and how district courts follow the Judicial Conference's guidance.
"This is a very important issue," she said.
Missing from Tuesday's meeting was panel member Chief U.S. District Judge David Godbey of the Northern District of Texas, who last month said the consensus among judges on his court was to not adopt the Judicial Conference's policy at this time.
He did so days after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case arising from his district, in which U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump in the single-judge division of Amarillo — suspended approval of the abortion pill mifepristone.
The Supreme Court has allowed the pill to remain on the market while it considers the appeal.
The Justice Department had argued for reforms to combat such judge shopping. Brian Boynton, a top U.S. Department of Justice official and ex officio member of the rules committee, on Tuesday said it supported the panel continuing to look at the issue.
"The Judicial Conference policy is very helpful," he said. "It does appear that there is going to be some uncertainty about whether there is uniform uptake of the new policy."
Read more:
Texas federal court will not adopt policy against 'judge shopping'
Senate Democratic leader Schumer urges 'judge shopping' reform in Texas
US Senate Republicans push back against anti 'judge shopping' policy
Conservative US judges criticize new rule curbing 'judge shopping'
US federal judiciary moves to curtail 'judge shopping' tactic
