You're aware of the practice of judge shopping, right? Most often it's used by conservatives, who file suits in specific locations where they're guaranteed to get a wingnut judge who will issue a nationwide injunction based on even the flimsiest evidence. Favored judges include Matthew Kacsmaryk (mifepristone, "Remain in Mexico"); Drew Tipton (immigration); Mark Pittman (student loans, minority businesses); Reed O'Connor (Obamacare, gun control); and Terry Doughty (COVID vaccines, Biden social media ban). All are in the 5th Circuit, where their rulings are likely to be upheld on appeal; all but Tipton are Trump appointees; and all but Doughty are in Texas.
The reason judge shopping works is that there are some jurisdictions with only one, or maybe two judges. File in the right place and you're nearly guaranteed to get the Trump judge of your dreams. Until today:
Judges themselves have moved to crack down on that tactic by adopting a new policy that mandates that all federal suits aimed at invalidating a national policy or statute or a state law or executive order be randomly assigned among judges throughout the judicial district where the case is filed...rather than being retained in the particular geographic division where they are filed and assigned only to the judge or judges in that division.
CNN provides an example of how this works:
For instance, the abortion drug case [mifepristone] was filed in the Amarillo Division of US District Court of the Northern District of Texas, where US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk...is assigned to hear all cases under local rules.
Under the new policy, in the future, such a case would go through the random selection process for the entire district court — which has 11 active judges and five senior judges — thus significantly lowering the odds that it would be assigned to Kacsmaryk.
Filing your right-wing lawsuit in Texas will still give you a better chance of winning, but it no longer guarantees that you'll get one of the rubber stamp judges. Progress.
POSTSCRIPT: It's worth a quick note that the ban wasn't the brainchild of wild-eyed liberals. It was spearheaded by Jeffrey Sutton, chief judge of the 6th Circuit, who was appointed by George W. Bush and has been responsible for several very conservative rulings. Even the right-wingers finally got embarrassed by the antics of the Texas judges.
this may slow things a bit but it's still alito's world
This is great news and something I wasn't even aware was being considered, let alone close to being actually implemented. And not just because of the direct impact of limiting judge shopping, but as a sign the federal judiciary can still be a fair and impartial branch of the government, not completely controlled by partisan influence. Too bad SCOTUS doesn't demonstrate a similar restraint.
“And not just because of the direct impact of limiting judge shopping, but as a sign the federal judiciary can still be a fair and impartial branch of the government, not completely controlled by partisan influence.”
Hahahahaha. I needed a good laugh today. Thanks for providing. “Fair and impartial branch!” That’s a zinger for sure.
I wonder if a suit could be brought against it...I wouldn't hold my breath.
There was a technical argument for expanding the Supreme Court that had to do with the size of the population and the work load justices now had, considerably larger than a few decades ago.
Can someone describe this?
I’ll take a stab at it:
Pipe dream, back-door court-packing.
You say court packing, I call it updating the Supreme Court to meet the needs of the US today. For example, the US Circuit Courts were initially created in 1789. It has been changed by law many times with the last change happening in 1982.
The Supreme Court composition has also changed over time. Updating it now will better serve the much larger population of the country today.
Presumably the workload of the Executive Branch has increased at least as much as the population has, so perhaps we should have, oh, 5 Presidents to handle the workload?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases_decided_by_year suggests we must have needed a whole lot more Justices in the 1960s. I have to wonder if the workload of the Supreme Court is really a function of the population.
Not presidents but around 5x the representation in Congress we have now ease congestion by spreading the workload because no one, certainly not these numbskulls, can have expertise in, or even be barely informed, in all things.
And by curtailing the obstructiveness of prima dona politicians.
Have we had fewer sitting SCJOTUS before in history? Yes? Or no? A direct answer would be appreciated.
Sure, I'll play. Yes. That does not mean however, that the workload of the Supreme Court is determined by the population of the United States.
And, uh, where did I say it did? Are you still playing? Are you willing to admit that I did not say that that the workload of the Supreme Court is determined by the population of the United States? If so, a yes/no answer would be appreciated.
No. cld did and set the context:
It doesn’t take much explaining. Historically there have been one Supreme Court justice for every circuit. We’ve added more circuits since WWII but haven’t added more justices because Reasons. Proponents of the idea suggest that the Supreme Court should grow as the number of circuits grows, which in turn grows as the population grows. Seems pretty self explanatory, no?
The reason for expanding the SC is not the population number. It is to reduce the effect of single individuals appointed for life on essential issue of the whole of the US.
The current situation, with nine individuals appointed for life, both encourage corruption and make the appointment of judges a highly important political issue. It also makes impeachment when it is really needed a non-starter.
Increasing the number to a much larger number (30 - 70) would solve all of these issues. The problem is that it will not help either of the main parties, so neither of them support it.
The argument was referring, as I recall, to the administrative function of the justices in regard circuit courts, or something of that nature.
Increasing the number that high is overdoing it. I think tenure could be addressed by requiring them to be re-confirmed after about 22 years. Because twenty years doesn't seem like enough but 22 seems like the point where anyone would have to think about retiring and if they really want to justify their record in a Senate hearing.
"Increasing the number that high is overdoing it. "
Why?
As I wrote, the main point is to reduce the impact of each individual. Large number achieves that.
What do you lose with a big number? It will mean changes to their procedures, but I don't think there is any real problem.
30-70? For one thing they'd all have to be confirmed, and there may not be that many people actually qualified. Which Senate is going to confirm them all, installing dozens for decades?
And rather than decreasing corruption I'd think it would increase it because they would become reliant on faction among themselves, like a parliament, rather than simply reflecting faction as they do now, thereby becoming a cultivated interest group and a factor in legislation. Today each is an interest group of one, but fifteen or twenty together?
" Which Senate is going to confirm them all, installing dozens for decades?"
One possibility is gradual increase, over two-three decades. This means several "senates" and presidents.
With a more serious congress you can come with better solutions. As I wrote, the problem is that the dominant parties don't want it, so it is not going to happen. But if the dominant parties accept that it is the right approach, they can make it work.
" Today each is an interest group of one, but fifteen or twenty together?"
They will face other groups of comparable size. That is far better than the current situation.
"... Updating it now will better serve the much larger population of the country today."
Will you still think so if Trump wins and the Republicans gain control of the Senate?
Perhaps to avoid any suspicion of partisan game playing any change should only take effect 10 years later.
Hey, troll, you never replied on the previous thread. Well, a complete lack of shame is more or less de rigueur.
No, I'm not looking to relitigate the serial stupidities that caused you to vanish when they became unsupportable. I'm just pointing out that anyone who engages with you is wasting their time.
Fuck off troll.
All of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana still roll up to the Fifth Circuit. They won't affirm looney-tunes rulings anymore...they'll reverse judges who reject looney-tunes motions as well.
Right but… there’s only so many hours in the day for them to reverse stuff. If they have enough sane rulings happening below them, they might run out of time to reverse them all. Gotta start somewhere and starting with eliminating forum shopping is as good a place as any other. (There’s zero movement to replace or dilute the Fifth Circuit anytime soon… so what else do you want to try instead? It’s perfectly fine to criticize but it’s harder to come up with an alternative plan.)
Well, it's a start. Step two has to be clearer rules on what can be nationally enjoined, right? And it would be nice if they could talk a little sense into their brethren over in the 11th circuit (where Kacsmaryk would probably be right at home), but that's wishing for sparkle ponies, isn't it.
I'm not sure embarrassment was the motivation. Probably something more akin to workload and sharing the glory.
Pingback: Right Wing Round-Up: The White Nationalist In Office – CitrixNews
Kevin Drum may have gotten a bit ahead of himself. The proposal is currently being circulated for comment by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Assuming the Judicial Conference decides to go forward, it will publicly release the contents of the proposal and recommend that the Circuits follow it. The Circuits are not required to follow the recommendations of the Judicial Conference, but they generally do.
Pingback: There may finally be some resistance to judge-shopping in federal courts | Off the Kuff