In certain situations, plaintiffs in federal court are able to basically pick which judge hears their case by choosing which district and division they file in. Critics of this “judge shopping” say it has led to cases that overturned government policies, like the Texas case that suspended FDA approval of the abortion drug mifepristone before it was advanced to the Supreme Court. In March, a federal judicial panel issued a policy to try to stop judge shopping in cases like this, but it’s not a hard and fast rule. Paul R. Gugliuzza, a professor at Temple University Beasley School of Law, joins us to explain exactly how judge shopping is possible, what this policy aimed to do and why it might not work, and how this all adds to Americans’ lack of faith in our justice system. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices
In certain situations, plaintiffs in federal court are able to basically pick which judge hears their case by choosing which district and division they file in. Critics of this “judge shopping” say it has led to cases that overturned government policies, like the Texas case that suspended FDA approval of the abortion drug mifepristone before it was advanced to the Supreme Court. In March, a federal judicial panel issued a policy to try to stop judge shopping in cases like this, but it’s not a hard and fast rule. Paul R. Gugliuzza, a professor at Temple University Beasley School of Law, joins us to explain exactly how judge shopping is possible, what this policy aimed to do and why it might not work, and how this all adds to Americans’ lack of faith in our justice system.
To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices