Dem
51
GOP
49
Recently, we wrote that the Judicial Conference of the United States had announced a new policy, that judges would be assigned at random from the district they represent, rather than the division. The effect of this policy would be that any given case might end up on the docket of any of 10 to 20 judges, as opposed to the docket of just one judge (or maybe two). One-judge divisions have been used for judge shopping, with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, being a particular favorite for Republicans. That division just so happens to be served by a sole judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, a right-wing activist with a penchant for issuing national injunctions.
A few days later, we wrote that Republicans were not happy about this development. While partisans on both sides engage in judge shopping, it's a much more valuable tool for Republicans because their positions tend to be more extreme (and thus cannot get through a legislature) and because there are more one-judge divisions in red areas than in blue areas. And so, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republican leaders sent letters to the chief judge of each district, urging them to ignore the new policy.
This week, the GOP got good news out of the Northern District of Texas, courtesy of Chief Judge David Godbey (a George W. Bush appointee). Godbey wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announcing that the district would continue to operate as it always has, and that the Judicial Conference of the United States can take its new policy and shove it. Well, he said it more politely than that, but that was the gist.
What happens next is anyone's guess. It's possible that will be the end of it. Congress has the power to pass laws telling the judicial branch how to operate, but there's no way House or Senate Republicans would ever allow an anti-judge-shopping bill to pass. Someone could sue, arguing their case was wrongly assigned, but that would likely be a tough hill to climb.
We are guessing that this means the ball is in the court of Chief Justice John Roberts, who is also the ex officio head of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He could potentially impose sanctions on any judge who refuses to abide by the new rules. Alternatively, what he really hates are these national injunctions, so he could encourage his colleagues to accept a challenge to that power, and then join with the three liberals and probably Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to strike it down. That would not put an end to judge shopping, but it would make it less efficacious, since a Matthew Kacsmaryk or a Drew Tipton could only impose their views on part of the country, rather than all of it. (Z)