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.
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 writer with 30 years of newspaper and online journalism experience. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic and The Kansas City Star. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
Five years on: How Covid changed everything
Feature We seem to have collectively forgotten Covid’s horrors, but they have completely reshaped politics
By The Week US Published
-
Trump’s TPS takedown
Feature The president plans to deport a million immigrants with protected status. What effects will that have?
By The Week US Published
-
Do I qualify for student loan forgiveness?
The Explainer There are a number of different pathways to qualification, though each requires strict criteria to be met
By Becca Stanek, The Week US Published
-
How are attorneys dealing with Trump's attacks on law firms?
Today's Big Question Trump has sanctioned the law firm that investigated his dealings with Stormy Daniels, among others
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Is America heading toward competitive authoritarianism?
Today's Big Question Some experts argue that the country's current democratic system is fading
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Why is MAGA turning on Amy Coney Barrett?
Today's Big Question She may be the swing vote on Trump cases
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Supreme Court rules against Trump on aid freeze
Speed Read The court rejected the president's request to freeze nearly $2 billion in payments for foreign humanitarian work
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Why is Trump's cryptocurrency reserve plan putting some economists on edge?
TODAY'S BIG QUESTION The president has named five cryptocurrencies he wants to see added to a federal stockpile as experts and lawmakers alike warn that the whole project could be a total flop
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
What is behind China's aggressive naval maneuvers near Australia?
Today's Big Question Live-fire drills are a test for Trump
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
What do Trump-supporting farmers make of his tariff and DOGE policies?
Today's Big Question A 'fresh element of worry' for agriculture
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Why are Republicans suddenly panicking about DOGE?
TODAY'S BIG QUESTION As Trump and Musk take a chainsaw to the federal government, a growing number of Republicans worry that the massive cuts are hitting a little too close to home
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published