We all know about judge shopping, right? It's the practice of filing lawsuits in districts with only one or two judges, which guarantees you a friendly face if you pick the right district. It's most prevalent in north Texas, which has several districts that are helmed solely by business-friendly, anti-government, right-wing judges, usually chosen by Donald Trump.
This crossed my eyeballs today via a post by Stephen Vladeck responding to a recent defense of judge shopping by Reed O'Connor of.......the northern district of Texas. So I read through O'Connor's defense, and it turned out to consist of only two things:
- Judge shopping is even worse in patent and bankruptcy courts, so why are you picking on us?
- Allowing judge shopping means that "heavier access-to-justice burdens aren't imposed on citizens in our district based solely on where they live."
The first one is plain dumb, and also wrong. Judge shopping in patent cases caused a huge fuss a few years ago and ended up being banned in its epicenter of Waco, Texas.
The second defense doesn't even parse. O'Connor hears most of his cases in Fort Worth but holds hearings in Wichita Falls if the litigant is local. There's no reason this couldn't continue for genuinely local cases even if most Wichita Falls filings were randomly assigned throughout the northern district (which is virtually all located in Dallas/Fort Worth).
Stephen Vladeck's response is generally polite because, you know, lawyers. But I don't have to be: This is the flimsiest, most ridiculous defense of judge shopping imaginable. Unless there's truly something I don't understand about how much travel judges would have to do under a new regime, I think we can safely say that there's no justification for Texas-style judge shopping. It's a purely partisan Republican thing.