Texas Judge Shopping

Something remarkable is unfolding in Texas. Since 2021, the state has filed an astounding 31 lawsuits against the federal government in various federal district courthouses across the state. Let's delve into one specific case in Amarillo, which revolves around immigration. In this particular lawsuit, a judge ruled that the Biden administration must adhere to the Trump-era policy known as "Remain in Mexico," which effectively prevents asylum seekers from entering the country.

Although the Biden administration eventually had this decision overturned, it took nearly a year. During that time, they had to comply with the ruling and restrict asylum seekers from entering the country. This outcome was the result of one judge's ruling. Interestingly, the Texas Attorney General's office purposely sought out this specific judge for the case.

This judge would go on to preside over multiple lawsuits brought by the Texas Attorney General's office against the federal government over the next two years. Texas utilized a legal strategy known as "judge shopping," a practice unique to the state. While the norm dictates that judges are assigned randomly, Texas allows litigants to select the judge they prefer, resulting in significant implications.

Each state in the U.S. has at least one federal district court, with Texas boasting four such courts. These district courts form the foundation of the federal court system and handle cases primarily concerning national laws. The appointment of federal judges falls under the jurisdiction of the president, resulting in over 600 district judges across the country.

Typically, the judge assigned to a case is chosen randomly, ensuring a neutral arbitration of legal disputes. However, due to the immense size of the United States and its states, some districts cover vast areas. For instance, the Northern District of Texas spans a considerable region, making it difficult for litigants from remote locations to access the court.

To address this issue, many districts are subdivided into multiple divisions, each with its own courthouse. However, the rules governing case distribution among divisions differ across districts. In the Northern District of Texas, for example, the rules are less stringent, allowing litigants to file their cases in any division they choose. The same leniency applies to other districts in Texas.

This unique system leads to a significant problem. In certain divisions, such as the Victoria Division in the Southern District of Texas or the Amarillo Division in the Northern District, there may be only one active judge. Litigants are aware of this and file their lawsuits in these divisions, knowing precisely which judge will preside over their cases.

Over the course of two years, the Texas Attorney General filed eight separate lawsuits against the Biden administration in Victoria, specifically because they knew Judge Tipton would oversee them. These cases covered various topics, including the border wall, the minimum wage, and gun laws. Judge Tipton had consistently ruled in favor of the state of Texas, issuing nationwide injunctions that prevented the Biden administration from implementing its policies.

Texas possesses another unique advantage due to its position in the judicial hierarchy. If a district judge's decision is appealed, it moves up to one of the 12 Appeals Courts, also known as circuit courts. From there, it can be further appealed to the Supreme Court. All Texas district courts report to the Fifth Circuit Court, which is widely regarded as the most conservative circuit court, with a majority of judges appointed by Republican presidents.

A notable example of this dynamic occurred when a private group filed a lawsuit in Amarillo seeking to ban abortion pills that had been legal for two decades. Judge Kacsmaryk ruled in favor of the private group, ordering the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to revoke its approval of mifepristone nationwide. The Fifth Circuit Court largely agreed with this ruling, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which temporarily halted the decision.

Although the Supreme Court intervened in the mifepristone case, it often delays hearing cases for months, allowing the lower court's decision to shape federal law in the interim. For instance, Judge Tipton's ruling on the reprioritization of undocumented immigrant deportations remains in effect, with the Supreme Court yet to issue its ruling almost a year later.

While strategic decision-making in legal cases is not uncommon, the recent trend of judge shopping is a relatively new phenomenon. Addressing this issue requires action from various stakeholders. District courts themselves can opt for different approaches, as demonstrated by the Southern District of Texas, which recently added a second active judge to the Victoria Division. Congress also possesses the power to pass legislation regulating case distribution. One proposed bill would redirect any lawsuit seeking to block a federal policy to the courts in Washington, D.C.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court could establish new rules governing lower courts. Until such changes occur, litigants seeking a favorable outcome in the Supreme Court will continue to recognize that Texas district courts allow them to select their judge, wielding significant influence over the outcome of their cases.