Federal courts on Tuesday moved to make it harder to bring cases before judges deemed favorable to a certain point of view, a practice known as judge shopping that gained national attention in a massive abortion pill case. moved.
The new policy covers civil cases that affect the entire state or country. Even in areas where locally filed cases are heard by a single judge, random assignment of judges would be necessary.
Most of the nation’s 94 federal district courts already randomly assign cases under plans, but some plans assign cases to judges in smaller divisions where the cases are filed. ing. In single-judge divisions, which tend to be local, that means private or state attorneys can essentially choose which judge to hear the case.
Senate Democrats and Republicans clash over federal IVF protections: ‘They’re covering their responsibilities’
The practice has raised concerns from senators and the Biden administration, with Chief Justice John Roberts highlighting its use in patent litigation in a 2021 report on the federal judiciary.
Chief Justice John Roberts, pictured above, is in the midst of the federal courts’ continued attempts to make it harder to bring cases before judges deemed to have favorable views. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Interest groups of all kinds have long tried to get their cases before judges they believe are friendly to their cause. But the practice has received even more attention following an unprecedented court ruling blocking the approval of abortion pills. The case was filed in Amarillo, Texas, and will be heard by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmalik, an appointee of former President Donald Trump and a former attorney for the Religious Freedom Law Group, which has a long history of advancing conservative causes. It is almost certain that it will.
The Supreme Court has put its ruling on abortion pills on hold and will hear arguments on it later this month.
Sotugest, who became pregnant after being raped, approves of abortion: “I’m one of those 1 percent”
The new policy, announced by the U.S. Judicial Conference after its biennial meeting, does not apply to cases that only seek local litigation. Judge Jeff Sutton, chief judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and chairman of the Judicial Conference Executive Committee, said it was not adopted in response to a specific case, but rather “a large number of cases nationwide and throughout the state. It was adopted in response to an injunction.
“We believe in solving local cases locally, but if the case is a declaratory judgment action or a national injunction, obviously the stakes of the case go beyond that small town. ” he said.
