For quite some time now, lawyers, special interest groups and even states attorneys general have counted on a tactic designed to better their odds of winning federal litigation.
It's called "judge-shopping." A lawsuit is filed in a specific geographic division of a federal judicial district in order to have the case assigned to a judge whose rulings have inclined favorably to the plaintiff's interests in the past.
Judge-shopping isn't limited by type of cases or political persuasion, but conservatives -- especially in Texas -- have become exceptionally adept at using the tactic to delay, chip away at or block national policies they disagree with.
Well, that's going to be more difficult going forward.
On Tuesday, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which is responsible for federal judicial policies, took action to combat judge-shopping.
From now on, lawsuits filed in any of the nation's 84 federal judicial districts will no longer be assigned to a judge based on geographic division, but randomly among all judges in the district.
"The random case-assignment policy deters judge-shopping and the assignment of cases based on the perceived merits or abilities of a particular judge," Judicial Conference Secretary Robert Conrad added in a statement. "It promotes the impartiality of proceedings and bolsters public confidence in the federal Judiciary."
We agree. Federal cases should be decided fairly and on merit. One side shouldn't be able to stack the deck.