End Judge Shopping Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Sherrill, Mikie [D-NJ-11]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 9, 2025
Bottom line
This bill seeks to limit the practice of "judge shopping" for nationwide injunctions by requiring such cases to be filed in multi-judge divisions, thereby potentially diffusing judicial power and increasing the likelihood of diverse judicial perspectives.
What it actually does
The bill, titled the "End Judge Shopping Act," amends title 28 of the U.S. Code to restrict where civil actions seeking nationwide injunctions can be filed. Specifically, it mandates that any civil action seeking an order enforceable across all U.S. districts and divisions must be brought only in a division of a judicial district that has two or more active judges assigned. This aims to prevent single judges from issuing broad injunctions that affect national policy.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill addresses the problem of "judge shopping," where litigants strategically file cases in divisions with a single judge known to be sympathetic to their cause, leading to nationwide injunctions that can halt federal policies across the country. They contend that requiring such cases to be heard in multi-judge divisions promotes judicial fairness, reduces the power of a single judge to impact national policy, and encourages more deliberative judicial review.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill could create unnecessary procedural hurdles for litigants seeking urgent relief against federal actions, potentially delaying justice. They might also contend that it could be seen as an attempt to limit judicial independence or to make it harder for plaintiffs to challenge government overreach effectively, particularly in cases where a single judge might be the only available avenue for prompt action.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, requiring less than a minute to read, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core proposal.
Section 2(a), amending Chapter 87 of title 28, United States Code, by adding Section 1414
Restriction on Venue for Nationwide Injunctions
This provision establishes a new rule for civil lawsuits that aim to get a court order (an injunction) that would apply across the entire United States. It states that such lawsuits cannot be filed in a court division that only has one active judge. Instead, they must be brought in a division of a judicial district where there are two or more active judges. This is intended to ensure that cases with nationwide impact are heard by a larger judicial body.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is a necessary reform to curb the perceived abuse of nationwide injunctions, which can be issued by a single judge and halt federal policies across the entire country. They contend it promotes judicial accountability and ensures that such impactful decisions arise from a more deliberative process involving multiple judicial perspectives.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision could make it more difficult for individuals and groups to challenge potentially unlawful federal actions, especially in cases requiring swift judicial intervention. They may contend that it adds an unnecessary layer of procedural complexity and could be seen as an attempt to limit the power of the judiciary to check executive overreach.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire to prevent "judge shopping" and the issuance of broad injunctions by single judges against concerns about potentially limiting access to justice or delaying critical legal challenges to federal policies. It aims to introduce more judicial deliberation at the cost of potentially increased procedural complexity for plaintiffs.