Judicial Conference eliminates judge-shopping for lawsuits against federal & state laws

[brucejoel99]

Civil cases involving state or federal laws, rules, regulations, policies, executive branch orders & mandates will now be randomly assigned to any of the judges of an entire district court so as to curb the incidence of indecorous judge-shopping filings in single-judge divisions like Amarillo in the Northern Texas Federal District Court. Cases NOT seeking state- or nationwide injunctive relief will be permitted to continue being intra-divisionally assigned (so cases like Trump's bogus Hillary defamation suit in Ft. Pierce would still be possible).

https://twitter.com/CAPoliticalLaw/status/1767602941773713537

[politicallefty]

This is definitely good news. It's not as far as I would go in terms of universal vacatur and other nationwide injunctions, but it's a huge step in the right direction. I would argue that nationwide injunctions against the federal executive branch should generally require the approval of SCOTUS.

Considering Chief Justice Roberts is head of the Judicial Conference, I think we can start writing Chevron's obituary. There's a good chance he's writing the decision himself and he might even reference what the Judicial Conference has now done.

[Skill and Chance]

This is definitely good news. It's not as far as I would go in terms of universal vacatur and other nationwide injunctions, but it's a huge step in the right direction. I would argue that nationwide injunctions against the federal executive branch should generally require the approval of SCOTUS.

Considering Chief Justice Roberts is head of the Judicial Conference, I think we can start writing Chevron's obituary. There's a good chance he's writing the decision himself and he might even reference what the Judicial Conference has now done.

Yes, I would say “only SCOTUS can issue a nationwide injunction that applies beyond one district/circuit” is where this ultimately ends?

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1768298313772867986

[brucejoel99]

This is definitely good news. It's not as far as I would go in terms of universal vacatur and other nationwide injunctions, but it's a huge step in the right direction. I would argue that nationwide injunctions against the federal executive branch should generally require the approval of SCOTUS.

Considering Chief Justice Roberts is head of the Judicial Conference, I think we can start writing Chevron's obituary. There's a good chance he's writing the decision himself and he might even reference what the Judicial Conference has now done.

Yes, I would say “only SCOTUS can issue a nationwide injunction that applies beyond one district/circuit” is where this ultimately ends?

Anything more than incidentally affecting district assignment, like here by requiring inter-divisonal randomization across the district level, may honestly require congressional legislation, since it'd constitute changing the original exclusive jurisdiction of a suit; i.e., can the Judicial Conference promulgate a rule giving SCOTUS default jurisdiction over cases that are currently required by federal statute to be filed in district court?

[politicallefty]

This is definitely good news. It's not as far as I would go in terms of universal vacatur and other nationwide injunctions, but it's a huge step in the right direction. I would argue that nationwide injunctions against the federal executive branch should generally require the approval of SCOTUS.

Considering Chief Justice Roberts is head of the Judicial Conference, I think we can start writing Chevron's obituary. There's a good chance he's writing the decision himself and he might even reference what the Judicial Conference has now done.

Yes, I would say “only SCOTUS can issue a nationwide injunction that applies beyond one district/circuit” is where this ultimately ends?

Anything more than incidentally affecting district assignment, like here by requiring inter-divisonal randomization across the district level, may honestly require congressional legislation, since it'd constitute changing the original exclusive jurisdiction of a suit; i.e., can the Judicial Conference promulgate a rule giving SCOTUS default jurisdiction over cases that are currently required by federal statute to be filed in district court?

There could be a case made on the grounds of separation of powers. I personally despise those cases because they are atextual and fundamentally political questions that are best left beyond the judiciary.

Is there anything in federal law that stops the Judicial Conference from ordering nationwide injunctions to be approved be an appellate court or SCOTUS? District courts would still be empowered to provide relief on a case-by-case basis.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1768758029086806138https://twitter.com/kathoh/status/1768792587404554262

[politicallefty]

If you do just a bit of reading around, you probably won't be surprised by some of the people that are apoplectic over this.

[brucejoel99]

If you do just a bit of reading around, you probably won't be surprised by some of the people that are apoplectic over this.

Blackman's up to 8 "articles" in 5 days, last I checked. Some highlights:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1768079037019115692https://twitter.com/JuergBaenziger/status/1768102547481632976https://twitter.com/JoeDudekJD/status/1769546986280112452

[politicallefty]

I do like to read the Volokh page. Sometimes I find myself in absolute agreement and other times staunch disagreement (and sometimes in between). There are certainly people I like more than others. Either way, it's always good to step outside your usual comfort zone. However, it's easy to tell the staunch partisans apart and Josh Blackman is one of them. (I still read his posts though because I do think it gives you insight into a certain part of right-wing thought.) I expected more subtlety on this though.

[brucejoel99]

I do like to read the Volokh page. Sometimes I find myself in absolute agreement and other times staunch disagreement (and sometimes in between). There are certainly people I like more than others. Either way, it's always good to step outside your usual comfort zone. However, it's easy to tell the staunch partisans apart and Josh Blackman is one of them. (I still read his posts though because I do think it gives you insight into a certain part of right-wing thought.) I expected more subtlety on this though.

The cope has now horseshoed around full-circle:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1774879062093352994