The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Chief Judge of the Northern District of Texas Responds to Senator Schumer
The majority leader, and everyone else, should listen to the voice of Godbey on single-judge divisions.
A few weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a letter to Chief Judge Godbey of the Northern District of Texas. Schumer wrote, in so many words, That's a really nice court you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.
On Tuesday, Judge Godbey wrote a two-page response to Schumer. He made several important points
First, the proposals to outright eliminate single-judge divisions disregard how litigation works in remote places like Amarillo or Wichita Falls.
The allocation of cases among our judges is a complex matter. In addition to the fair administration of justice, we must also consider: the number and type of civil and criminal cases filed in a division, which varies significantly from division to division; the convenience of the jurors, witnesses, parties, and attorneys; the desire of communities to have local judges; the burden of travel on court personnel; and the need to provide judicial support for divisions without a resident district judge. Our system of case allocation among available judicial officers is one that has evolved over the years to meet the particular needs of our District, and we constantly reevaluate it.
Second, Judge Godbey opined on the sheer size of the Northern District of Texas, which is not comparable to the Northern District of New York:
The Northern District of Texas has some unusual characteristics that also require consideration. First, the District is geographically large. It encompasses more than 96,000 square miles. That is approximately 75% larger than the entire State of New York. It stretches more than 400 miles across, both North to South and East to West. It is also diverse, including the dense, urban Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, as well as sparsely populated rural counties in our North, West, and South reaches.
The distance from the southernmost portion of New York (Staten Island, my hometown) to the Northernmost portion (near the Canadian border) is only 350 miles. And a similar dynamic applies to the Southern District of Texas. The distance from Houston (the northernmost portion of the Southern District) to Brownsville (near the Mexican border) is about 350 miles. Then again, the Southern District of New York stretches all the way from Manhattan to Poughkeepsie (about 85 miles). I realize Senator Schumer may think the world ends beyond the Hudson, but there is lots of America that needs access to justice. And I say this as a former New Yorker who got to Texas as fast as I could. Rules that apply to dense states like New York would not make sense for sparse states like Texas.
Third, Judge Godbey explains why "random" assignments would not work.
So the random assignment of all civil cases across this District would present logistical challenges far beyond those of the smaller districts you mention, or the random assignment of a small slice of civil cases such as patent cases.
Judges who are stationed in Dallas with their staff cannot be expected to travel hundreds of miles away for random cases. And no, justice cannot always be dispensed on Zoom.
Godbey's last point is the most significant. The Chief Judge does not have the unilateral power to make this change.
I also bring to your attention a provision of our Local Rules which requires that the district judges as a whole determine the method by which cases are assigned to individual judges. See L. Civ. R. 83.3. It is common for the Chief Judge to tweak the percentage assignment to particular judges after consultation with the affected judges, which I did in the Orders you cite. But, I am not authorized to impose unilaterally a new method of case allocation for our District.
I am well aware that in 2016, Judge Godbey's predecessor reassigned 15% of cases from the Wichita Falls division to herself. That was a controversial decision at the time, and one that was never fully justified. And Judge Godbey reversed that decision in 2022. And I think Judge Godbey accurately states the rules.
My earlier writing on single-judge divisions can be found here and here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The District of Alaska encompasses more than 663,000 square miles. That is approximately 147% larger than the entire State of Texas. It stretches more than 1400. Jules across, both North to South and East to West. It is also diverse, including the dense, urban Municipality of Anchorage, as well as sparsely populated rural villages in its North, West, and Southwest reaches.
It has zero single-judge divisions.
Why not?
As a “civilian” this idea of judges travelling to other cities seems surprising.
One of our local JPs seems quite reluctant to move the 30 feet from his office to the little-used courtroom. He’ll do it but he’s not happy about it. Another JP I had the misfortune to encounter wouldn’t move at all and the whole proceeding from guilty plea to sentencing took place with me standing in front of his desk.
I'm just muddying the waters here.
1)If I'm reading right, Alaska only has slots for 3 district judges (one of which is vacant). ND Texas has 11 (in both cases, I'm ignoring senior status). So I'm not sure the two cases are completely comparable.
2)Alaska only seems to have 3 federal courthouses:
Anchorage (metro are population about 400k)
Fairbanks (95k)
Juneau (32k)
(the rest of the state has about 200K total)
ND Texas has 15 if I counted right (Wiki article titled 'List_of_United_States_federal_courthouses_in_Texas').
I'd guess that a)people in the Alaska hinterlands just expect to fly the big city for that kind of thing and b)the judges don't have dedicated districts, because whoever got Anchorage would have an excessive workload. I have no clue what the population feeding each courthouse is in TX, but it's **possible** the distribution isn't as lopsided as AK, and so you can spread judges out proportional to population, with some areas only meriting one judge. But even if Alaska wanted to do that, the layout doesn't permit it.
I don't have any firm conclusions other than that just comparing square miles might be an overly simplistic analysis.
Agreed!
Perhaps we should let Prof. Blackman know?
"Why not?"
Because it's inefficient and unnecessary and would serve no good purpose.
Because there are a whole lot of cases in Dallas and all those litigants would be prejudiced if the judges were galavanting off to other courthouses to handle random cases.
"Rules that apply to dense states like New York would not make sense for sparse states like Texas."
This is the best argument a "professor" can offer?
This blog deserves better than you.
Makes perfect sense to me. This blog deserves better comments than yours.
Schumer wrote, in so many words, That's a really nice court you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.
I want to see that quote in full context, on Schumer's letterhead. Until I see it I am going to be stuck, because I think Schumer is almost dumb enough to do it. But I also think Blackman is dumb enough to lie about it.
You realize there's a link to the letter in the post, right?
Nope. I was pretending confusion. I assumed there was zero chance Schumer said any such thing, and on that lazy basis concluded of course Blackman would have no link. Because Blackman bathos is bottomless, I met my comeuppance.
Note that I do think Schumer is stupid. Or maybe just so incapable to be forthright he makes himself look stupid. With politicians you may have to take that possibility into account, but not with all of them.
I think Prof. Blackman’s characterization of Sen. Schumer’s letter as threatening to require the elimination of single judge divisions if Judge Godbey doesn’t do first is fair. I also think that 1. The threat is frivolous, since congress clearly isn’t going to pass the legislation necessary to do so and 2. Sen. Schumer’s letter was entirely appropriate, and it’s unfortunate that Congress isn’t going to step in here.
If conservatives had any principles, eliminating funding of the snowflake special division (Amarillo) of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas would be among the spending cuts Republicans are demanding.
It's not fair. It would be accurate to say that Schumer is saying that if you don't change your policy, we'll have to do it legislatively. Calling that a "threat" is Blackman stupidity. Nothing is going to "happen to" the district if Congress changes that policy.
I'm sorry, but do you actually think we are limited to the exact words people use and are not permitted to read between the lines?
I’m sure the geography of Texas is fascinating, but since we’re talking about venue shopping by a TN based organization represented by a legal organization headquartered in AZ I’m not sure of relevance.
Schumer's letter had nothing to do with the problems of venue shopping either. If he'd wanted to solve that problem, he wouldn't have written to anyone merely in the Northern District of Texas.
Hell, he's a senior legislator. If Schumer really wants to solve the problem of venue shopping, he should do his damn job and propose legislation to fix it.
The first paragraph of Schumer's letter concludes, "As a result of your recent assignment orders, plaintiffs in your district can now effectively choose the judge who will hear their cases." Sounds like venue shopping to me. Which the Tennessee based plaintiffs in this case did by incorporating in Amarillo shortly before filing there.
Isn't that exactly what he said he would be doing if this continues to be a problem?
We're not talking about venue shopping. We're talking about judge shopping. The venue is merely the mechanism for selecting the judge these litigants want hearing their cases.