| Abstrakt: |
Reproductive rights have been repeatedly challenged before the same judge in the Northern District of Texas’ Amarillo Division. In the Western District of Texas, patent litigation boomed in one judge’s Waco courtroom. And several cases involving former President Trump were assigned to the same judge in the Southern District of Florida. When a party steers a case toward a particular judge, the outcome in that case may seem predetermined and therefore unfair. Assigning cases at random is one way to ensure at least the appearance of fairness. Yet there is no right to random case assignment in federal court. This Article offers three unique contributions to understanding federal case assignment. First, it contends that whether a party is entitled to a certain form of case assignment is a question of power, not fairness. The statutes, rules, and orders that determine how federal cases are assigned are creatures of federal procedure. The Constitution assigns the power to create that procedure to Congress, which Congress can delegate to the courts. Second, the Article identifies the procedure that controls case assignment in the federal district courts. A first-of-its-kind review of hundreds of local rules and general orders highlights how often cases are not assigned at random. Third, the Article evaluates the validity of case assignment practices that have impacted reproductive rights and patent litigation in Texas, and cases involving the former President in Florida. If the local rules and general orders that govern case assignment are invalid exercises of the rulemaking power Congress delegated to the courts, then the case assignments they create may be unconstitutional. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
