•  
  •  
 

SMU Law Review

Abstract

Accounts of American litigation pose a contradiction: forum shopping is acceptable, but judge shopping is not. Formal disfavor toward judge shopping is pervasive, and attempts by parties to manipulate the assignment of their case are deemed abusive and even sanctionable. Nevertheless, sophisticated judge-shopping tactics have proliferated in specific areas of the law—particularly in challenges to executive-branch policies and in the reorganization of large companies under Chapter 11. In these disparate areas of law, judge-shopping strategies have been deployed in high-profile cases, ranging from a challenge to the FDA’s authorization of an abortion drug to the opioid-driven bankruptcy of Purdue Pharma. In these cases, and in others like them, plaintiffs used permissive venue rules to reach small geographical divisions where a single, preferred judge hears all, or nearly all, cases. These trends led to recent and contested proposals by the Judicial Conference to encourage random assignment.

This article first introduces a framework to distinguish between types of judge-shopping, explaining why some forms may be more problematic than others. Then, it compares judge-shopping in areas of the law, examining the basis for common intuitions against the practice. It concludes that judge shopping in the regulatory context is especially concerning, with its attendant impact on national governance and its selection away from judicial expertise in administrative law. In contrast, in bankruptcy cases, judge shopping can be disentangled from other controversial—and independently fixable—bankruptcy problems. When examined as a conceptually independent issue, judge-shopping in the bankruptcy context raises fewer concerns. Having concluded that judge shopping is more problematic in some areas than others, this article examines both broad and tailored reforms to address it, including the abolition of single-judge divisions, reforms to venue statutes, the use of three-judge district court panels to review certain cases, and judicial peremptory strikes.

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS
 

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

https://doi.org/10.25172/smulr.77.4.3