Supreme Court's Taking an Influx of Cases From One Circuit

[Rogue Valley]

Supreme Court's taking an influx of cases from one circuit

The lower court, with the highest number of 2023-2024 Supreme Court cases thus far, is also the nation's most conservative.

www.newsweek.com

3.27.24
The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in more than 50 cases this term, and the plurality of them have come from the nation's most conservative appeals court: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The 5th Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, far outnumbers other lower courts when it comes to getting a case before the High Court's justices. Of the cases that the Court has heard thus far, 10 have come from the 5th Circuit. Comparably, seven cases have come from the 2nd and 9th Circuits each and four from the 3rd, 8th and 11th Circuits each.

The 5th Circuit not only represents a higher volume of cases but is also the origin of major legal battles. The 2023-2024 cases that have come from the lower court thus far include the Supreme Court's first Second Amendment case since its landmark ruling in State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen in 2022 and the Court's first abortion case since it overturned Roe v. Wade that year. As more and more cases from the 5th Circuit land before the justices, some legal scholars are warning that conservative groups are increasingly bringing their cases to the appeals court in hopes of a better chance at litigating all the way to the Supreme Court.

Here's how it works. Say you are a far-right organization that is seeking to overturn a particular personal right. Well, you get a local Republican attorney to file a lawsuit with the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Your lawsuit will be heard by the uber-conservative and Trump-appointed Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. How do we know this? Because Matthew Kacsmaryk is the sole District Court Judge in Amarillo, ensuring that all cases filed there land in front of him. There is no guesswork over how he will rule. He always rules in favor of the conservative angle. Don't like his ruling? Well then, you are forced to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, another uber-conservative bench. Don't agree with their ruling? Well then, take your argument to the US Supreme Court, which is precisely what the conservative organization that filed the original lawsuit in Amarillo actually wanted... an opportunity to convince the 6 conservative Supreme Court Justices to change the law of the land (and disenfranchise yet another group).

Conservative groups have constructed a conveyor-belt process for having their cause heard by the 5th Circuit CoA, and then hopefully, the US Supreme Court. It's no accident that high profile court cases are uitilizing this template.

 

[BlueTex]

Supreme Court's taking an influx of cases from one circuit

The lower court, with the highest number of 2023-2024 Supreme Court cases thus far, is also the nation's most conservative.

www.newsweek.com

Here's how it works. Say you are a far-right organization that is seeking to overturn a particular personal right. Well, you get a local Republican attorney to file a lawsuit with the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Your lawsuit will be heard by the uber-conservative and Trump-appointed Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. How do we know this? Because Matthew Kacsmaryk is the sole District Court Judge in Amarillo, ensuring that all cases filed there land in front of him. There is no guesswork over how he will rule. He always rules in favor of the conservative angle. Don't like his ruling? Well then, you are forced to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, another uber-conservative bench. Don't agree with their ruling? Well then, take your argument to the US Supreme Court, which is precisely what the conservative organization that filed the original lawsuit in Amarillo actually wanted... an opportunity to convince the 6 conservative Supreme Court Justices to change the law of the land (and disenfranchise yet another group).

Conservative groups have constructed a conveyor-belt process for having their cause heard by the 5th Circuit CoA, and then hopefully, the US Supreme Court. It's no accident that high profile court cases are uitilizing this template.

And the federal courts have noticed...


On March 12, 2024, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the advisory body for the federal judiciary, announced a new policy to discourage “judge-shopping.” This new policy will require random judicial assignment among all judges in the federal district for cases with nationwide or statewide implications.

Federal trial level courts are divided into districts, and some of those districts are further split into geographic divisions. Many divisions are staffed by a small number of judges, often only one or two. Each district has the discretion to develop its own rules for case assignment. Prior to Tuesday’s policy announcement, many districts allowed litigation filed in federal district court to be assigned to a judge in the geographic division in which it was filed. If a division only has one judge, then that judge may be assigned all cases filed in that division. This policy allows plaintiffs to effectively hand-pick their preferred judge to decide their case by filing in a single-judge division.
In recent years, an increasing volume of cases have been filed in single-judge judicial divisions seeking nation-wide injunctions of federal policies. These challenges include many high-profile challenges related to abortion, healthcare policy, and immigration. Many of these cases were brough in federal court in Texas, and the plaintiffs in those cases requested the judge in that division enjoin the federal government from implanting the challenged policy.

In response to this growing practice, the Judicial Conference has issued this new policy requiring any civil actions seeking to bar or mandate state or federal actions by declaratory judgment or injunctive relief to be randomly assigned between all judges in the federal district in which the case was filed, meaning that plaintiffs could no longer hand pick a judge in a single-judge division. In support of this policy, the Conference noted that the value of trying a civil case in the nearest geographic division becomes less important when the impact of the ruling might be felt statewide or nationwide. Chief Judge Sutton of the Sixth Circuit, explained, “The idea behind this most recent amendment is to say we get the idea of having local cases resolved locally, but when the case is a declaratory judgment action, national injunction action, obviously, the stakes of the case go beyond that small town or that division.” District courts may continue to assign cases to a single-judge division when the cases do not seek state- or nation-wide injunctive or declaratory relief.

Federal Judiciary Issues New Policy to Combat Judge-Shopping | JD Supra

On March 12, 2024, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the advisory body for the federal judiciary, announced a new policy to discourage...

www.jdsupra.com

 

[Opossum]

Supreme Court's taking an influx of cases from one circuit

The lower court, with the highest number of 2023-2024 Supreme Court cases thus far, is also the nation's most conservative.

www.newsweek.com

Here's how it works. Say you are a far-right organization that is seeking to overturn a particular personal right. Well, you get a local Republican attorney to file a lawsuit with the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Your lawsuit will be heard by the uber-conservative and Trump-appointed Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. How do we know this? Because Matthew Kacsmaryk is the sole District Court Judge in Amarillo, ensuring that all cases filed there land in front of him. There is no guesswork over how he will rule. He always rules in favor of the conservative angle. Don't like his ruling? Well then, you are forced to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, another uber-conservative bench. Don't agree with their ruling? Well then, take your argument to the US Supreme Court, which is precisely what the conservative organization that filed the original lawsuit in Amarillo actually wanted... an opportunity to convince the 6 conservative Supreme Court Justices to change the law of the land (and disenfranchise yet another group).

Conservative groups have constructed a conveyor-belt process for having their cause heard by the 5th Circuit CoA, and then hopefully, the US Supreme Court. It's no accident that high profile court cases are uitilizing this template.

To me it seems like you're reading it backwards. If the Supreme Court had the agenda that you're claiming, then they'd take more cases from liberal circuits, to overturn them and leave conservative circuit decisoins alone to let them stand.

 

[Helix]

The far right is pushing regressive priorities via test cases. If that's the way the US government works now, the Democrats will have to respond accordingly.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Politically designed case pathways to the Supreme Court is nothing new, it is just that we are seeing an amplification of the strategy given the right leaning Supreme Court.

It is about finality of decision, not necessarily pathways from more liberal court decision making.

 

[Opossum]

The far right is pushing regressive priorities via test cases. If that's the way the US government works now, the Democrats will have to respond accordingly.

What regressive priorities? Putting US citizens' rights and interests before illegal immigrants?

 

[Helix]

What regressive priorities? Putting US citizens' rights and interests before illegal immigrants?

Please.

 

[Opossum]

Please.

No? What regressive priorities? Not starting WWIII?

 

[Buckeyes85]

What regressive priorities? Putting US citizens' rights and interests before illegal immigrants?

As random, non sequiturs go, that one was pretty impressive.

That and failing to grasp the point of the OP- which addressed the well documented efforts of the right to file cases advancing their agenda before hand picked judges. Not the agenda of the supreme court. Many of those cases likely wind up before the high court due to erroneous decisions at the trial court level. Try to keep up.

 

[eohrnberger]

As random, non sequiturs go, that one was pretty impressive.

That and failing to grasp the point of the OP- which addressed the well documented efforts of the right to file cases advancing their agenda before hand picked judges.

This so called 'Judge shopping' isn't new and isn't particular to a political party lean.

The OP is only whining about this in particular because it isn't left leaning cases. If it were left leaning cases he'd be cheering them on.

Not the agenda of the supreme court. Many of those cases likely wind up before the high court due to erroneous decisions at the trial court level. Try to keep up.

 

[Loulit01]

Gorsuch, Alito, Bunny Barrett, Thomas, Roberts and Kavanaugh are traveling on a private jet (paid for by a conservative donor) when it crashes in the woods. They can see a town off in the distance but there's a river between them and the town. They dig around the wreckage and find a huge watertight suitcase and a kayak paddle.

Three of the Justices say the river is fast but shallow, they want to walk across. The other three say it's safer to sit on the suitcase and paddle.

Six hours later they're all dead in the water.

The case overturned during Row V. Wade arguments.

 

[Buckeyes85]

This so called 'Judge shopping' isn't new and isn't particular to a political party lean.

The OP is only whining about this in particular because it isn't left leaning cases. If it were left leaning cases he'd be cheering them on.

You are correct- certainly not a new issue. Though I'm not sure if it is being used/abused by one side more than the other. I'm in favor of any attempt to bar the practice by both sides, though I'm unsure what remedy this new rule provides in that it simply says: cases to be randomly assigned within a geographical territory. How does that happen if there is only 1 judge?

 

[eohrnberger]

You are correct- certainly not a new issue.

Though I'm not sure if it is being used/abused by one side more than the other.

Yeah, the OP opines about the instance he raises, and then there's the flip side, the aptly named '9th Circus' court of appeals.

I'm in favor of any attempt to bar the practice by both sides, though I'm unsure what remedy this new rule provides in that it simply says: cases to be randomly assigned within a geographical territory. How does that happen if there is only 1 judge?

Fair. But it appears to simply be part of the system. The saving grace is that there's checks and balances in place.

 

[JMB1911A1]

No different than liberals case shopping to the 9th Circuit. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Yeah, the OP opines about the instance he raises, and then there's the flip side, the aptly named '9th Circus' court of appeals.


Fair. But it appears to simply be part of the system. The saving grace is that there's checks and balances in place.

Not sure about that last part re: checks and balances. One would like to believe that is the case. But review by the supreme court is entirely discretionary. If the court has an agenda or bias, one way or the other, they can simply refuse to take up a case they don't want to hear. And of course, that process via the intermediate court of appeals takes years- during which the trial court's decision remains in effect.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Yeah, the OP opines about the instance he raises, and then there's the flip side, the aptly named '9th Circus' court of appeals.


Fair. But it appears to simply be part of the system. The saving grace is that there's checks and balances in place.

Fair point as to 9th circuit. But note, the 9th circuit contains roughly twice the number of citizens as the 5th, yet according to the cited article, the 5th still had more cases that wound up before the supreme court. So not sure we are really dealing with an apples to apples comparison.

 

[eohrnberger]

Not sure about that last part re: checks and balances. One would like to believe that is the case. But review by the supreme court is entirely discretionary. If the court has an agenda or bias, one way or the other, they can simply refuse to take up a case they don't want to hear. And of course, that process via the intermediate court of appeals takes years- during which the trial court's decision remains in effect.

Fair, but 'checks and balances' is also one of those articles of faith too.

Fair point as to 9th circuit. But note, the 9th circuit contains roughly twice the number of citizens as the 5th, yet according to the cited article, the 5th still had more cases that wound up before the supreme court. So not sure we are really dealing with an apples to apples comparison.

Well, on judge shopping, I think so yes, on case load, no, but case load is a new item for consideration I guess.