November 28, 2023

Gallego Champions Bill to Stop Partisan Judges from Imposing their Political Beliefs on Millions of Americans

Bill addresses judicial overreach following the Texas ruling to ban mifepristone nationwide

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Rep. Ruben Gallego (AZ-03) announced his support for the Fair Courts Act,legislation that would prevent litigants from targeting their cases to specific judges in order to guarantee an outcome and require a panel of judges to preside over cases that seek nationwide relief.

“For decades, anti-choice advocates have used conservative judges to do their bidding and limit a woman’s right to an abortion,” said Rep. Gallego. “Look no further than the mifepristone case in Amarillo, Texas, earlier this year to see what happens when partisan judges impose their political beliefs on millions. We must get back to an impartial court system and roll back the weaponization Americans have come to experience from a handful of extreme judges.”

Many times, plaintiffs hoping to further their political causes will participate in a practice known as “judge shopping,” where they target their cases toward partisan judges to receive a favorable ruling for their case.

This has been used to seek nationwide injunctions against the federal government. A high-profile, recent example of this was when a judge in Amarillo, Texas ruled to limit access to the abortion medication mifepristone. Anti-abortion litigants specifically brought the case before the judge because they knew he would rule in their favor.

The Fair Courts Act seeks to correct the weaponization of the court system by:

  • Prohibiting a district court from granting nationwide relief unless the request is heard by a panel of three judges. This prevents a rogue district judge from making sweeping decisions that could harm millions of Americans, while still allowing for relief to be granted when it is warranted to prevent harm;

  • Reining in the ability for litigants to hand pick specific judges to guarantee their preferred outcome, a practice known as “judge shopping,” by requiring certain cases filed in a federal court to be randomly assigned to judges within the district or state where the case was filed; and

  • Increasing transparency in the way that cases are assigned to judges by requiring this information is made available on the district court’s website.