The Judicial Conference of the United States, the 26-member policy-making body of the federal court system, on March 12 announced it strengthened a policy that governs random case assignment. The new policy seeks to limit “the ability of litigants to effectively choose judges in certain cases by where they file a lawsuit,” according to the announcement.
The policy only addresses civil actions “that seek to bar or mandate state or federal actions, ‘whether by declaratory judgment and/or any form of injunctive relief,’” the conference noted. In those cases, judges would be randomly assigned through a district-wide process under the policy.
Judge Robert Conrad Jr., secretary of the conference, said the policy would deter “judge-shopping” and is meant to promote impartiality and bolster public confidence in the federal judiciary.
The conference is made up of the chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of the 12 circuits and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade. The chief justice of the U.S. serves as the conference’s presiding officer according to statute.
There are 94 federal district courts and most of them have plans in place to randomly select judges for local cases. But in divisions where only one judge is sitting, the plans have made it possible for litigants to preselect the judge by filing their action in that division, the conference explained.
The updated policy follows a November 2021 bipartisan letter from North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican, and Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat who has since retired. In the letter, the pair raised concerns about the concentration of patent cases filed in divisions with only one judge.
The conference noted Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. referenced the November 2021 letter in the 2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. Roberts called for a study of judicial assignment practices in patent cases in that report.
During the patent-case study, the Court Administration and Case Management Committee found similar issues might occur in bankruptcy and other types of civil litigation too, the conference noted in the announcement. The conference explained in the announcement that “public debate grew when several highly controversial lawsuits, seeking nationwide injunctions against federal government policies, were filed in single-judge court divisions.”
The CACM said some of the local case assignment plans may create the appearance of “judge-shopping.” The case management committee also expressed it may be less important to try a case in the nearest division “when the impact of a ruling might be felt statewide or even nationally.”
In the amended policy, cases involving state or federal laws, rules, regulations, policies or executive branch orders must be randomly assigned. The conference noted district courts can continue to assign cases to divisions with only one judge when they don’t seek to bar or mandate state or federal actions via declaratory judgment or injunctive relief.
The CACM will disseminate the guidance to all district courts.