An independent federal judiciary is a cornerstone of our republic. We must defend it.
Our local federal trial court — the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas — has jurisdiction over federal civil and criminal cases in 100 counties covering about 96,000 square miles. It is the largest federal jurisdiction that is not an entire state. To administer its large, complex and diverse docket, the court divides itself into seven divisions.
Two divisions, Amarillo and Wichita Falls, have one judge each who presides over nearly all cases there. These are known as “single-judge divisions.”
Single-judge divisions make sense in the sprawling Northern District of Texas. They make it easier for residents to have their cases heard locally without requiring judges, jurors and litigants to travel hundreds of miles.
The court’s use of single-judge divisions is not only prudent, but also proper. Under the Constitution, only Congress can tell federal trial courts how to operate. By statute, Congress has directed them to structure themselves.
Despite this, the Judicial Conference of the United States, a collection of policy advisory committees with no authority over courts, issued guidelines encouraging federal trial courts to randomly assign certain cases districtwide. Following the law and its rules, the Northern District of Texas declined to adopt the nonbinding recommendations.
Some commentators, including The Dallas Morning News editorial board, say that the court is a target of “judge shopping.” They argue that conservative plaintiffs, especially the state of Texas, are incentivized to file politically charged lawsuits in the court because most of its judges were nominated by Republican presidents. They also argue that such cases are often filed in the court’s single-judge divisions, where two Republican-nominated judges preside. They conclude that this erodes public trust.
I disagree. It is irresponsible to suggest, without evidence, that judges abandon the law to advance alleged ideologies because some lawsuits have political motivations underneath their legal claims. And if critics want to eliminate single-judge divisions, they should lobby Congress, not the court.
Forum shopping — the practice of litigants filing lawsuits in courts with which they are familiar or that they perceive to be friendly to their claims — is not unique to this court. And it is not new. It is also unavoidable. People will always prefer litigating before some judges or courts over others, for any number of reasons.
U.S. Circuit Judge James C. Ho put it well in a speech earlier this year: The issue is not whether litigants shop for forums; it is whether judges sell their forums. There are no serious claims that the Northern District of Texas sells itself. The federal judges in Amarillo and Wichita Falls faithfully interpret the law and have ruled against conservative plaintiffs suing the federal government in high-profile cases. Litigants know this, even if pundits and protesters ignore it. Consider this: Despite the public outcry over the FDA abortion pill case being filed in Amarillo, the federal government did not even try to transfer the case.
It is dangerous to fuel distrust of the court with unfounded allegations of impropriety. In October, a woman was charged with threatening to assault and murder a judge. The federal judge in Amarillo was the apparent target. Such threats are attacks on the rule of law.
We can each take steps to improve confidence in the federal judiciary:
- Depoliticize. Unless there is evidence that federal judges are political actors, refrain from describing them by the name or party of the president who nominated them. Call them “Judge.” It honors the authority that we, through our elected officials, have entrusted to them.
- Depersonalize. Unless there is a good reason to identify federal judges individually when discussing court rulings, call them “the Court.” It respects the constitutional institution that they embody.
- Democratize. Read judges’ opinions and orders, not mere summaries of them. Exercise your First Amendment right to review court documents, which are public records. Even if you disagree with how judges rule, you can better understand why they rule.
Preserving trust in the Northern District of Texas begins with us. We must respect the Court’s statutorily enshrined independence, even if it decides that single-judge divisions best serve justice. The court deserves our defense.
Alan Carrillo is an attorney at Brown Fox PLLC in Dallas. He clerked for U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr on the Northern District of Texas and serves as president of the Federal Bar Association’s Dallas chapter.
We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com