In a pointed address at a Federalist Society conference in Fort Worth, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor criticized recent efforts by the federal judiciary to combat what he termed “judge shopping.” O’Connor, a favorite among conservative litigants and appointed by George W. Bush, accused the U.S. Judicial Conference of bowing to “political pressure” in its pursuit of reforms aimed at preventing cases from being directed to sympathetic judges in smaller courthouses.
He expressed concern that the new policies undermine the integrity of the judiciary, asserting that they disregard the notion that judges can operate without partisan bias. In March, the Judicial Conference introduced a policy requiring random assignment of cases challenging federal or state laws, a move O’Connor claimed was influenced by external critiques rather than a genuine desire to improve judicial processes.
O’Connor pointed out that his court often hosts significant cases, emphasizing issues related to governmental power, parental rights, and the balance of authority between federal and state governments. He acknowledged that these cases have drawn scrutiny, with critics alleging that they stem from strategic “judge shopping.”
Despite the new guidelines, O’Connor noted that some judges have resisted the push for reform, leading to a clarification that the policy is non-binding and at the discretion of individual courts. As a result, the Northern District of Texas has opted not to implement the changes, with Chief U.S. District Judge David Godbey stating that the consensus among local judges was to maintain the current assignment practices.
However, O’Connor warned that the pressure for reform persists, particularly as the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules considers establishing a binding rule for random case assignment. He cautioned that the challenges facing the judiciary are far from over, highlighting the ongoing tension between judicial independence and external political influences.
