Texas court sidesteps anti-judge shopping reforms, fueling conservative legal strategies

The Northern District of Texas defies guidance aimed at ending "judge shopping," maintaining a status quo that lets conservative litigants choose their judges, igniting debates on judicial fairness.


The Northern District of Texas has made a pivotal decision to continue its current case assignment process, defying new anti-“judge shopping” guidance from the Judicial Conference. This choice allows conservative groups to handpick judges for their cases, sparking a debate about fairness and impartiality in the judiciary.

Chief U.S. District Judge David Godbey conveyed the court’s stance in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, stating, “The consensus was not to make any change to our case assignment process at this time.” This declaration comes in the wake of the Judicial Conference’s March 12 policy aimed at curbing “judge shopping” by randomizing lawsuit assignments, a practice that has been scrutinized for enabling litigants to seek out favorable rulings by choosing specific judges known for their ideological leanings.

The policy’s rejection by the Northern District is significant, particularly given the court’s history with high-profile cases, such as Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s Amarillo court ruling last year to suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a medication used in abortions. This case underscored the strategic use of venue selection by right-wing groups to challenge federal laws.

Judge Mark Pittman, expressing internal disagreement within the district, criticized the manipulation of judicial venues, stating, “Venue is not a continental breakfast; you cannot pick and choose on a plaintiff’s whim where and how a lawsuit is filed.” His words reflect a broader concern about the integrity of the judicial process and the potential for “judge shopping” to undermine the impartiality of the courts.

The decision not to implement the Judicial Conference’s guidance follows objections from Republican lawmakers, leading to a clarification that the policy was discretionary. Schumer’s urging of the courts to apply the reforms to prevent “extremists” from selecting sympathetic judges highlights the political tension surrounding the issue.

The Northern District’s stance not only raises questions about the influence of political and ideological factors on judicial decisions but also highlights the challenge of maintaining judicial independence and fairness in a highly polarized environment. Judiciary observers note the potential for chief judges to reconsider the tolerance of “judge shopping” in the future, indicating an ongoing debate within the legal community.

Godbey’s letter to Schumer, asserting the Northern District’s decision to maintain the status quo, encapsulates the court’s position amidst a national dialogue on judicial impartiality. “The consensus was not to make any change to our case assignment process at this time,” he wrote.

This development underscores the intricate dynamics at play within the judiciary, where the principles of justice and impartiality must navigate the realities of political and ideological divisions. As the conversation on “judge shopping” and judicial reform continues, the commitment of the courts to upholding these principles remains under scrutiny.

David Dayen of The American Prospect noted, “Even the judges you least expect are pissed at being pawns in a conservative game.”


If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.