(via
YouTube)
When
anti-abortion
activists
filed
a
lawsuit
in
Amarillo,
Texas
seeking
to
overthrow
federal
drug
regulation
nationwide,
they
understood
that
there
was
a
100
percent
chance
that
they
would
end
up
with
Christian
legal
activist
turned
Trump
Judge
Matthew
Kacsmaryk.
It
worked
out
for
them.
This
ruling
dealt
a
brutal
blow
to
the
public’s
faith
in
the
judiciary,
ultimately
inspiring
the
Judicial
Conference,
the
body
representing
the
leadership
of
the
federal
court
system,
to
recommend
that
cases
seeking
national
or
statewide
injunctions
be
randomly
assigned
on
a
district-wide
basis
to
prevent
the
appearance
of
impropriety.
A
rational
proposal
that
imposed
no
significant
burden
on
anyone
and
the
most
dedicated
Federalist
Society
judges
in
the
country,
who
see
small
divisions
less
as
vital
access
points
for
justice
in
remote
areas
than
supercharged
political
judgeships
allowing
litigants
to
game
the
judge
selection
process,
responded
by
telling
the
leadership
to
pound
sand.
Leading
the
pushback
against
the
potential
end
of
the
right-wing
gravy
train
was
the
Fifth
Circuit’s
Judge
James
Ho.
His
initial
comments
were
fraught
with
contradictions
and
bad
faith
comparisons,
but
with
the
benefit
of
time
he’s
now
refined
his
stance
into
a
longer,
more
detailed
compilation
of
contradictions
and
bad
faith
comparisons.
Judge
Ho
laid
out
his
opposition
to
the
forum
shopping
rule
in
a
jumbled
mess
of
remarks
to
the
Midland
County
Bar
Association
a
couple
days
ago.
But
lately,
some
critics
of
the
judiciary
have
chosen
to
bemoan,
rather
than
celebrate,
the
fact
that
many
Americans
across
the
country
are
served
by
a
single,
local
federal
district
judge.
So
many
grossly
misleading
claims
for
such
a
short
sentence.
First
of
all
by
“critics
of
the
judiciary”
he
means
the
Judicial
Conference.
Maybe
he
sees
the
Chief
Justice
and
Sixth
Circuit
Chief
Judge
Jeffrey
Sutton
as
self-hating
jurists,
but
rebranding
the
leadership
of
the
federal
judiciary
—
Republicans,
no
less
—
as
mere
“critics
of
the
judiciary”
like
they’re
campus
anarchists
or
something
is
just
transparent
nonsense.
Moreover,
no
one
bemoans
the
existence
of
single
judge
courthouses
to
serve
remote
communities
or
there
would
be
a
palpable
movement
to
crack
and
pack
courthouses
like
gerrymandering
congressional
districts.
If
anything,
the
Judicial
Conference’s
proposal
sought
to
protect
the
rapidly
eroding
credibility
of
those
judges.
Judge
Ho
drapes
his
talk
in
rhetoric
about
a
single
judge
being
a
“member
of
their
community”
and
the
burden
on
poor,
rural
folks
forced
to
“litigate
before
a
judge
who
lives
hundreds
of
miles
away,”
even
though
the
case
we’re
all
talking
about
—
the
mifepristone
ban
—
didn’t
involve
humble
townsfolk,
it
was
brought
by
FIVE
OUT
OF
STATE
GROUPS
who
incorporated
a
new
entity
in
Amarillo
mere
months
before
filing
the
case
for
the
sole
purpose
of
bringing
this
matter
in
front
of
the
judge
they
wanted.
Under
this
proposal,
citizens
in
the
Panhandle
will
more
likely
than
not
be
forced
to
litigate
their
rights
before
a
federal
judge
400
miles
away
in
Dallas.
The
proposal
was
limited
to
cases
seeking
national
or
statewide
injunctions.
So,
no,
citizens
in
the
Panhandle
are
not
“more
likely
than
not”
litigating
in
Dallas
because
citizens
in
the
Panhandle
with
business
before
the
federal
courts
are
more
likely
than
not
NOT
asking
a
judge
to
overrule
the
scientific
conclusions
of
FDA
medical
scientists
on
the
strength
of
his
JD.
Indeed,
the
only
Amarillo
litigant
more
likely
than
not
to
be
forced
to
THE
BIG
CITY
under
the
rule
would
be
a
group
like
Alliance
for
Hippocratic
Medicine
that’s
actually
made
up
of
a
bunch
of
big
city
activists
carpetbagging
into
the
Panhandle
to
make
a
mockery
of
small
town
legal
needs.
We
shouldn’t
impose
greater
burdens
or
different
rules
on
Americans,
just
because
they
live
outside
our
Nation’s
largest
urban
centers.
The
Constitution
protects
every
citizen—not
just
those
who
live
in
big
cities.
More
of
the
BS.
He
knows
the
plaintiffs
are
a
fictional
entity
established
at
the
behest
of
outside
activists.
He
just
thinks
the
rest
of
you
are
too
stupid
to
figure
that
out.
I’ll
begin
by
stating
the
obvious.
There’s
nothing
inherently
wrong
or
suspicious
about
the
fact
that
some
judicial
divisions
in
our
federal
system
have
only
one
resident
district
judge.I
spend
many
of
my
weekends
in
a
small,
one
stoplight
town
in
Texas.
We
have
just
one
supermarket
in
that
town.Now,
do
I
immediately
assume
that
something
illegal
or
untoward
has
happened,
just
because
there’s
only
one
supermarket?
Some
blatant
violation
of
federal
antitrust
law?Of
course
not.
It
just
means
the
town
only
needs
one
grocery
store—not
two.And
just
as
one
grocery
store
doesn’t
mean
monopolization,
one
federal
district
judge
doesn’t
mean
corruption.
The
more
apt
analogy
would
continue
to
note
that
big
city
headquartered
supermarket
charging
the
residents
of
this
town
triple.
You
don’t
“immediately
assume”
illegal
behavior
because
there’s
one
supermarket,
but
once
it
starts
extracting
monopolistic
rents
from
the
locals,
it
progresses
from
an
assumption
to
reality.
Likewise,
no
one
“immediately
assumes”
a
problem
with
single
judges
until
wingnut
lobbying
interests
flock
to
that
district
to
create
sock
puppet
plaintiffs.
Ho
wants
to
reframe
the
discussion
as
an
attack
on
the
existence
of
single
judge
courthouses
as
opposed
to
the
exploitation
of
that
arrangement
so
he
just
ignores
the
second
half
of
the
problem.
But,
hey,
the
DOJ
forum
shops
too!
That’s
not
even
the
highest
profile
example
of
recent
forum
shopping
by
DOJ.
Last
year,
DOJ
filed
suit
against
Texas,
challenging
the
State’s
efforts
to
secure
the
border
in
Del
Rio.There’s
a
federal
court
in
Del
Rio.
And
other
similar
suits
have
been
filed
in
Del
Rio.Yet
DOJ
filed
in
Austin—not
Del
Rio.
It’s
pretty
obvious
that
DOJ’s
choice
of
forum
was
strategic.
And
it
has
not
gone
unnoticed.
One
district
judge
pointedly
observed
that
“the
United
States
sued
Texas
related
to
events
occurring
in
the
Western
District
of
Texas’s
Del
Rio
Division,
but
it
chose
to
bring
suit
over
200
miles
away
in
the
Austin
Division.”I
don’t
expect
Attorney
General
Garland
to
punish
these
DOJ
lawyers
for
blatant
forum
shopping,
either.
This
is
a
stupid
analogy
because
suing
the
state
government
of
Texas
in
the
capital
of
Texas
actually
is
the
right
venue.
But…
sure.
Let’s
play
with
the
facts
a
little
and
assume
the
DOJ
tried
to
enjoin
Texas
state
law
by
filing
in
San
Antonio
or
something.
The
DOJ
shouldn’t
be
able
to
bypass
a
relevant
federal
judge
in
that
district
just
by
filing
200
miles
away.
As
the
Judicial
Conference
eloquently
put
it
when
unveiling
this
proposal,
the
courts
embrace
random
judge
assignment
to
promote
the
appearance
of
fairness
and
those
seeking
national
or
statewide
injunctions
cynically
undermine
that
when
they
intentionally
seek
out
divisions
where
they
can
game
the
assignment
process.
AND
THIS
GOES
BOTH
WAYS!
Make
that
case
go
to
the
district-wide
wheel
too.
It’s
because,
if
you
file
in
the
San
Francisco
Division
of
the
Northern
District
of
California,
or
in
the
Greenbelt
Division
in
Maryland,
you
have
a
100%
chance
of
drawing
a
judge
appointed
by
a
President
of
a
particular
party.It’s
inevitable
that
lawyers
will
try
to
predict
which
strategies
will
best
serve
their
clients.
It’s
what
we
expect
in
an
adversarial
system
of
justice,
in
which
Congress
gives
plaintiffs
the
flexibility
to
select
their
venue,
under
the
laws
that
organize
our
federal
judiciary.
Shorter
Ho
“we
live
in
a
government
of
men
and
women,
not
laws.”
A
federal
judge
saying,
“look,
litigants
try
to
cheat
because
judges
are
nakedly
political
and
everyone
should
just
deal
with
it”
should
be
a
much
bigger
story.
He
also
doesn’t
really
believe
this,
he
just
knows
that
this
model
cuts
in
favor
of
his
political
preferences
because
ONLY
rural
areas
present
this
potential
exploit
and
a
combination
of
geography
and
blue
slips
make
this
particular
cheat
code
overwhelmingly
favor
his
cronies.
But,
fine,
Judge
Ho
thinks
forum
shopping
is
good
advocacy
actually.
So
if
there’s
a
real
concern
about
forum
shopping
in
our
country,
it’s
that
certain
judges
aren’t
just
taking
cases
as
they
come.
The
concern
is
that
some
judges
are
trying
to
direct
which
cases
they
get.
And
that
they’re
tilting
their
decisions
in
order
to
attract
the
cases
they
most
want.Some
people
use
the
term
“forum
shopping.”
But
the
real
concern
may
be
what
academics
call
“forum
selling.”
And
it’s
a
concern
that
I
take
very,
very
seriously.
Narrator
voice:
Judge
Ho
does
not
take
this
concern
seriously.
Few
judges
in
the
country
have
more
aggressively
sold
their
forum
than
Judge
Kacsmaryk
and
in
any
event
the
only
actionable
solution
to
for
forum
selling
is
to
water
down
the
odds
of
litigants
picking
their
judges.
Legal
academics
have
written
extensively
about
the
extreme
and
egregious
problem
of
forum
selling
by
federal
bankruptcy
courts.
One
law
professor
even
wrote
a
whole
book
about
it.
He
called
it:
Courting
Failure:
How
Competition
For
Big
Cases
Is
Corrupting
the
Bankruptcy
Courts.
Bro,
you’re
the
one
who
just
argued
that
forum
shopping
is
good,
strategic
advocacy.
Now
you’re
listing
a
bunch
of
abuses
that
can
happen
when
litigants
think
they
can
game
the
system?
Far
be
it
from
me
to
give
Ho
a
helping
hand
with
a
free
lesson
is
rudimentary
argumentation,
but
you
don’t
actually
need
to
make
every
argument,
if
it
undermines
your
best
argument.
As
for
bankruptcy
forum
shopping
being
bad…
then
expand
the
pool
for
that
too?
Saying
that
bankruptcy
and
patent
forum
shopping
(which
he
also
rails
against)
are
bad
too
isn’t
an
argument
AGAINST
the
injunction
forum
shopping
rule,
it’s
a
non-sequitur.
Speaking
of
non-sequitur
reasoning:
It’s
the
same
thing
when
critics
accuse
certain
Supreme
Court
justices
of
being
unethical.
They
don’t
attack
other
justices
who
engage
in
the
same
behavior—they
applaud
them,
because
they
like
their
rulings.
This
is
a
not-so-subtle
reference
to
Clarence
Thomas,
who
Judge
Ho
defended
with
the
curious
reasoning
that
some
justices
own
stocks
and
therefore
taking
hundreds
of
thousands
in
undisclosed
gifts,
a
free
house
and
tuition
for
family,
and
an
RV
from
activists
is
just
the
same
thing.
Anyway,
back
to
the
forum
shopping:
Why
is
it
ignoring
robust
bipartisan
opposition
to
forum
selling
in
our
Nation’s
bankruptcy
and
patent
courts—and
instead
catering
only
to
a
narrow
set
of
concerns
at
one
end
of
the
political
spectrum?
Because
courts
are
already
taking
action
to
combat
those
forms
of
forum
shopping/selling
without
national
intervention.
The
Western
District
of
Texas
had
the
most
notorious
IP
shopping
issue
and
took
it
upon
itself
to
solve
it.
The
solution?
RANDOM
DISTRICT-WIDE
ASSIGNMENT.
It’s
almost
as
though
the
Judicial
Conference
took
action
on
the
issue
with
the
most
devastating
negative
impact
on
public
trust
and
where
they
had
the
least
confidence
that
FedSoc
functionaries
like
Ho
and
Kacsmaryk
would
act
in
the
best
interest
of
the
rule
of
law.
In
this
vein,
he
complains
about
the
existence
of
nationwide
injunctions
outright,
a
right-wing
hobby
horse
based
on
shoddy
research
that
also
fails
to
address
the
statewide
injunction
issue
that
the
Judicial
Conference
proposal
includes.
But
assuming
that
neither
Congress
nor
the
Supreme
Court
will
take
action
to
stop
nationwide
injunctions
or
agency
vacatur,
all
is
not
lost.
In
fact,
we
already
have
a
solution
readily
available
and
on
the
books
today.It’s
called—appellate
review.
Newsflash:
appellate
review
exists
now
and
has
not
solved
the
problem.
This
failure
is
a
product
of
Ho’s
intentionally
obtuse
recasting
of
this
as
a
complaint
about
the
existence
of
small
courthouses.
Appellate
review
solves
the
risk
of
a
lone
federal
judge
continually
botching
the
law
—
as
the
Eleventh
Circuit
can
sadly
confirm
—
but
not
the
credibility
hit
the
judiciary
takes
when
national
rights
are
getting
gamed.
If
we
cater
to
the
forum
shaming
strategies
of
the
critics,
then
we’re
no
better
than
the
forum-selling
judges
who
distort
their
rulings
to
attract
bankruptcy
and
patent
cases.
Whether
we
distort
rules
to
attract
cases
or
appease
critics,
we’re
committing
the
same
sin.
So…
if
we
eliminate
the
incentives
for
forum
shopping,
then
we’re
no
better
than
judges
allowing
bankruptcy
and
patent
forum
shopping
to
go
unchecked…
which
we
shouldn’t
allow…
but
also
we
shouldn’t
do
anything
about?
You
know,
there’s
a
reason
why
some
of
the
most
egregious
assaults
on
the
rule
of
law
come
in
unexplained
shadow
docket
opinions.
The
justices
realize
that
when
it
comes
to
defending
the
indefensible,
shutting
up
is
free.
Judge
James
C.
Ho’s
Remarks
to
the
Midland
County
Bar
Association
[Volokh
Conspiracy]
Earlier:
Judicial
Conference
Shocked
SHOCKED
To
Find
Forum
Shopping
In
This
Establishment
Right-Wing
Judges
Rage
Over
Anti-Forum-Shopping
Rule
Because
Hit
Dogs
Holler
Chief
Justice
Roberts
Tried
To
Save
The
Credibility
Of
The
Judiciary,
But
Some
Judges
Just
Want
To
Watch
The
World
Burn
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.