Are 'judge shopping' rules a blow to Republicans?
How the abortion pill case got to the Supreme Court
The abortion pill case that landed before the Supreme Court on Tuesday didn't get there by accident. It was "a result of the 'judge-shopping' phenomenon," CNN said, a practice in which politically minded plaintiffs file lawsuits before friendly judges. The case challenging FDA approval of mifepristone was originally filed in Texas, and was initially decided by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of Donald Trump "who had previously worked for a religious liberty legal organization" and is well-known for his socially conservative leanings.
This week's court hearing came on the heels of a new policy intended to crack down on judge shopping, Politico said. The policy would require random judge assignments in cases seeking to block state or federal laws — making it more difficult for plaintiffs to game the system by filing cases in a particular judge's jurisdiction. "I'm really proud that we did this," said 6th Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton.
Conservative officials don't share that pride, Reuters said. U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho suggested the new policy is the result of — not an answer to — politicization of the judicial branch. "Judges are supposed to follow the laws enacted by Congress, not bend the rules in response to political pressure," he said in a statement. Similarly, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the new policy "half-baked 'guidance' that just does Washington Democrats' bidding."
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
What did the commentators say?
"This policy is a massive victory for the Biden administration," Ian Milhiser said at Vox. Under the previous policy, "Kacsmaryk's courtroom became a magnet for lawsuits attacking federal policies" by conservative figures like Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. And that faith was rewarded: Kacsmaryk "proved to be a rubber stamp for nearly any court order that a conservative litigant asked him to issue." Cracking down on judge shopping "will quell at least some concerns that federal litigation is a rigged game."
"In reality, the purported policy did the Left's bidding," Carrie Campbell Severino said at National Review. The policy will prevent plaintiffs from aiming their cases at specific judges; it won't stop them from filing in "ideologically homogeneous districts" where liberal judges are likely to land the case no matter how randomly they're assigned. Democrats can shop for judges too, after all: Attorneys in Alabama were recently sanctioned for their efforts to land a transgender health care case before a liberal judge. Which makes the new policy look "foolish."
The new policy, however, doesn't have that much force: It's nonbinding "guidance" by the U.S. Judicial Conference, said The Boston Globe in an editorial. The blowback from Republicans, however, "amounts to a tacit admission that they support the abuse of the legal system for partisan ends." Reducing the amount of judge shopping is a good idea, and the policy is a good start. "If federal judges don't follow it, Congress should make them."
What next?
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is trying to bring pressure to bear. He wrote to the chief judge of the Northern District of Texas — where many conservative cases are filed — to urge him to follow the new policy's guidelines in assigning new cases suing the government, Reuters said. "This new rule," Schumer said, "would rebalance our court system and restore America's trust in judicial rulings."
In the meantime, it's not at all clear that "judge shopping" will work out for anti-abortion forces in the mifepristone case. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday sounded reluctant to strike down access to the abortion pill, at least on the basis of the case before them. The New York Times said the three justices appointed by Trump — all anti-abortion conservatives sounded reluctant to strike down FDA approval of the pill "so long as doctors with objections to providing abortions are not forced to participate in them." The court is expected to issue its ruling in June.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a freelance writer who has spent nine years as a syndicated columnist, co-writing the RedBlueAmerica column as the liberal half of a point-counterpoint duo. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic, The Kansas City Star and Heatmap News. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
Knife: Salman Rushdie's 'mesmeric memoir' of brutal attack
The Week Recommends The author's account of ordeal which cost him his eye is both 'scary and heartwarming'
By The Week Staff Published
-
Crossword: April 27, 2024
The Week's daily crossword
By The Week Staff Published
-
Sudoku hard: April 27, 2024
The Week's daily hard sudoku puzzle
By The Week Staff Published
-
'Horror stories of women having to carry nonviable fetuses'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
Is the Gaza war tearing US university campuses apart?
Today's Big Question Protests at Columbia University, other institutions, pit free speech against student safety
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Sitting in judgment on Trump
Opinion Who'd want to be on this jury?
By Susan Caskie Published
-
Is the Supreme Court about to criminalize homelessness?
Talking Points The court will decide if bans on outdoor camping are 'cruel and unusual'
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Is there a peaceful way forward for Israel and Iran?
Today's Big Question Tehran has initially sought to downplay the latest Israeli missile strike on its territory
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
In what states is abortion legal, illegal, and in limbo?
In The Spotlight Where American states stand on abortion care
By Theara Coleman, The Week US Published
-
How could the Supreme Court's Fischer v. US case impact the other Jan 6. trials including Trump's?
Today's Big Question A former Pennsylvania cop might hold the key to a major upheaval in how the courts treat the Capitol riot — and its alleged instigator
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Is the next cold war a drone-swarm race between US and China?
Today's Big Question Both global superpowers are building up their capacity for surging robotic warfare. What happens next is anyone's guess.
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published