A U.S. Court of Appeals judge recently delivered a harsh rebuke to Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck during a Federalist Society panel discussion. Vladeck, who has made a name for himself studying “judge-shopping,” was criticized by Judge Edith H. Jones for his research into the practice of litigants filing lawsuits in courts likely to produce favorable rulings.
Vladeck’s academic focus includes examining how certain litigants strategically select courts particularly those with a single judge in a division to gain favorable rulings, such as nationwide injunctions. His analysis has primarily concentrated on Texas federal district courts, where, in certain divisions, the process of “forum-shopping” becomes narrowed down to “judge-shopping.” This occurs when cases are filed in divisions where a specific judge is likely to be assigned, giving litigants an advantage by ensuring their case is heard by a judge known to rule in their favor.
During a forum on “The Continued Independence of the Judiciary,” Jones took issue with Vladeck’s critiques, framing them as unwarranted attacks on the integrity of judges. She first sarcastically referenced Vladeck’s departure from the University of Texas and his future focus on other courts, notably the Ninth and D.C. Circuits, before launching into her criticism. She expressed her defense of the judiciary, particularly Fifth Circuit district judges, whom Vladeck had criticized for what he viewed as unethical litigation practices. Jones contended that such behavior was neither new nor necessarily improper, suggesting that judge-shopping had been a part of legal practice since ancient times.
Vladeck’s research had recently highlighted a specific pattern in lawsuits filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. He pointed out that 47 lawsuits against Biden administration policies were not filed in the state’s capital, Austin, but in divisions where Texas had a strong chance of drawing a particular judge. Vladeck argued that such behavior undermined the integrity of the judicial system by allowing litigants to choose judges based on ideological leanings, rather than the merits of the case.
Jones, however, dismissed these concerns as unfounded. She described Vladeck’s arguments as part of a broader pattern of attacks on the judiciary, suggesting that such critiques ultimately erode confidence in the rule of law. Jones argued that the practice of filing cases in divisions with known judges was not new, and she expressed disdain for what she saw as an ideological attack on the judges of the Fifth Circuit.
As tensions escalated, Vladeck attempted to steer the conversation back to the issue of judge-shopping. He suggested that both sides of the ideological spectrum downplay the practice when it benefits their interests, noting that institutional concerns about judge-shopping extend beyond partisan disputes. He cited the concentration of patent cases in a single-judge district in Texas, which received over 23% of federal patent law cases in 2021. This concentration, he argued, raised valid concerns about the integrity of the judicial process, irrespective of political affiliation.
Jones, however, remained unyielding. She pulled out a file containing Vladeck’s past articles, tweets, and amicus briefs, accusing him of mounting personal attacks on Republican-appointed judges. At one point, she pointed to the security detail assigned to Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointed judge in Texas, implying that the critiques of judges like him contributed to threats against their safety.
The debate grew increasingly tense as Vladeck criticized Jones for shifting the focus away from substantive discussion. In his view, the conversation was being reduced to a rhetorical exercise designed to discredit his arguments rather than engage with them meaningfully. Jones, on the other hand, doubled down on her defense of the judiciary, accusing Vladeck of attempting to tarnish the reputations of judges for political purposes.
The exchange concluded with Jones reiterating her belief that the practice of choosing specific judges was not inherently unethical, suggesting that Vladeck’s research was more about diminishing the credibility of conservative judges than addressing systemic issues. Despite their disagreement, Jones suggested that Vladeck would soon find similar issues to criticize in California, alluding to the likelihood of challenges to Trump administration policies in more liberal jurisdictions.
