An influential committee that determines policies governing the case management and administration for all the courts in the United States–except, of course, the Supreme Court–has proposed a new policy that would minimize the ability of litigants to “judge shop” for specific jurists by filing in divisions where a single judge with a known political philosophy sits.

The proposal from the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management would apply only to cases where a party sought injunctions or immediate relief involving state or federal laws, rules, regulations, policies, or executive branch orders.

These situations–where a plaintiff files a case in small jurisdictions where only one judge may hear a case in federal court–are increasingly being exploited by conservatives in north Texas, a district Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said is notorious for judge shopping because it’s comprised primarily of one-judge divisions.  In Northern Texas, ten of the eleven sitting judges were appointed by Republicans, including six by Donald Trump.  One Trump appointee, 47-year-old Matthew Kacsmaryk, is the sole judge in the Amarillo division, and he’s responsible for a number of controversial decisions including one that jeopardizes patients’ access to birth control medication. 

In the system used in the North Texas division, the judge of the division automatically hears a case.  Under the proposed system, cases that could lead to an injunction halting a federal law or regulation would have a judge selected from a pool of all judges in the district:  the eleven active judges and any of the seven senior judges who may be needed, regardless of which division the case is filed in.  The Judicial Conference would make this the system used in all jurisdictions, regardless of how many judges are currently serving in a division, eliminating the ability of a litigant to know which judge they would draw.