When anti-abortion activists sued the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 in an attempt to overturn approval of the abortion drug mifepristone, they filed their suit in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, where it was almost certain the case would be heard by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, an outspoken opponent of abortion.

Judge Kacsmaryk, the only federal judge in Amarillo, ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs that the drug was “unsafe.” In his ruling, he invalidated the drug’s 23-year-old FDA approval and opened a new front in the post-Dobbs reckoning over abortion rights.

The lawsuit – and the role of Judge Kacsmaryk, who is hearing the case 95 percent of civil cases in Amarillo – was one of the most notable recent examples of “forum shopping,” in which plaintiffs sought to pick sympathetic judges.

Now forum shopping is becoming increasingly difficult.

The panel of federal judges that sets policy for the rest of the federal judiciary on Tuesday announced a new rule intended to restrict the practice in civil cases with national consequences, such as the mifepristone lawsuit.

In such cases, where plaintiffs are seeking a sweeping remedy such as a nationwide injunction, the judge will be randomly assigned from across the district rather than defaulting to the judge or judges in a particular courthouse.

Forum shopping has been used for years by litigants across the political spectrum who file suit in districts and appellate circuits where they believe the pool of judges will play in their favor.

In challenging federal immigration policies, immigrant advocates have often turned to federal courts in California, reasoning that in a more liberal state the case is more likely to be assigned to a judge sympathetic to anti-government arguments.

In some cases brought by conservatives, such as the mifepristone challenge, plaintiffs have attempted to go even further with forum shopping, with the goal of having cases assigned to a specific judge who they believe will take a favorable view of their arguments.

Although some of the nation’s 94 federal district courts already assign cases randomly, most divide them into “divisions”: judicial subdistricts that forward cases to smaller groups of judges. In at least 90 of these departments, one judge handled more than half of the cases an article from 2018 in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. Eleven of those, according to the article, are in Texas, where conservatives have won nationwide injunctions against Obama-era immigration programs, transgender rights and labor policies. The rulings were subsequently largely affirmed by the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling was partially maintained by the Fifth Circuit, has been stayed pending review by the Supreme Court.

The effort to tackle forum shopping comes at a time when the federal judiciary faces increasing pressure to reform itself. After revelations that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had not made public lavish gifts and a forgiven loan based on his annual financial disclosures, the Judicial Conference tightened requirements for reporting free trips and gifts, and the Supreme Court passed a new law. code of conduct. Critics have said these self-imposed measures do not go far enough to ensure compliance.

Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., head of the Administrative Office of the Federal Courts, said the new rollback of forum shopping “promotes the impartiality of the proceedings and strengthens public confidence in the federal judiciary.” Although the new policy takes effect immediately, it will be left up to district courts how and when to put it into practice, said Judge Jeffrey Sutton, chairman of the Judicial Conference’s executive committee.

Critics of forum shopping tend to focus on high-stakes political issues, but the practice also has far-reaching implications for more arcane areas of the law. In a Letter from 2021 Two U.S. senators expressed concern to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts a report that a single judge from the Western District of Texas handled 25 percent of patent cases nationwide. The senators alleged that the judge, Alan D. Albright, solicited cases from potential plaintiffs, calling the practice “improper and inappropriate.”

In his 2021 final report, Justice Roberts wrote that geographic divisions were beneficial insofar as federal judges were “tied to their communities,” but that they also needed to be “generalists capable of addressing the full range of legal issues.” Judge Albright did not respond to a request for comment sent to his courtroom assistant on Tuesday.

In the days following the mifepristone ruling in Texas, two Democrats in Congress introduced a bill that would have mandated arbitrary case assignment and reinstated a practice established between 1937 and 1976 whereby any lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state or federal law challenge was heard by a three-judge panel.

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, also called on the Judicial Conference to make that change. “No judge should have the power to make sweeping decisions that could harm millions of Americans,” he said. “If a decision has national consequences, it must be heard by a panel of judges.”