The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
How Many Judges Sit In Single Judge Divisions?
And how many of those judges have issued national injunctions?
Today I was talking to a judge who supported the Judicial Conference's new "policy." I asked him how many single judge divisions there were. He had no clue. I asked him how many of those courts had issued national injunctions. He could name two, both of whom are in Texas: Judge Kacsmaryk (Amarillo, N.D.) and Judge Tipton (Victoria, S.D.)
So how many judges sit in single judge divisions? The answer is exceptionally difficult to figure out. Most district court web sites list the locations of courthouses, and may indicate which judges are assigned to which divisions. But judges often pick up cases in more than one division. None of that information is readily available on the web site. To figure out the distribution of cases, you would have to dig through division of work orders, which are subject to change at random intervals. Wikipedia lists the "duty stations" of various district court judges, but I have no idea how accurate that information is.
One of the most thorough analyses of this issue came in Steve Vladeck's amicus brief in United States v. Texas, which was filed in July 2022. According to Appendix A in Vladeck's brief, the Texas Attorney General filed challenges to federal policy in two single-judge divisions: Judge Tipton (Victoria, S.D.) and Judge Brown (Galveston, S.D.). At the time, Amarillo was not a single-judge division. In July 2019, Chief Judge Barbara Lynn had assigned herself 5% of Kacsmaryk's cases, but in September 2022, now-Chief-Judge-Godbey superseded that order. (Judge Lynn took similar action against Judge O'Connor's Wichita Falls Division; that reassignment has also been rescinded.)
There have been more changes. Judge Tipton was reassigned to the Houston division, and is no longer drawing cases from Victoria. That single-judge division no longer exists. And for those keeping score at home, Judge Tipton recently found that Texas lacked standing to challenge a federal immigration policy.
So if my math is right, the only other single judge division in Texas that Vladeck identified is Judge Jeff Brown in Galveston. I should note that Judge Brown issued an order that signaled he was widely interpreted as being unreceptive to strategic litigation cases. Conservative litigants have taken the hint.
In practice, there is a grand-total of one judge in Texas, who sits in a single-judge division, who is known for issuing national injunctions: Matthew Kacsmaryk. That's it.
There are ways for higher courts to deal with lower courts that make mistakes: appellate review. Indeed, Judge Kacsmaryk has had several cases up at the Supreme Court in recent years that have been reversed/stayed/vacated. I could add to that list Judge Sutton's reversal of Judge Newman's nationwide injunction from the Dayton single-judge division in Arizona v. Biden. But you don't deal with judges who issue rulings you disagree with by taking cases away from them.
If the Judicial Conference is serious about this policy, it can circulate to the judiciary a listing of all nationwide injunctions that have been issued by single-judge divisions. I suspect this list would be very, very small. And that list could be checked against appellate record, to see if those judgments were sustained or reversed. I suspect no such list actually exists, and the Conference put forward a policy based on grievances against a few judges who have been in the news. Indeed, if you scan through the letters from Schumer and Whitehouse, they almost exclusively talk about Texas. If the Conference doesn't put forward such a list, certainly local clerk's offices can generate this information. Moreover, if the Conference doesn't produce such a list, it suggests they made the decision without knowing or caring about the data, because it's not about the data, but about signaling the right virtues to critics.
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
Somebody is really, really upset by the Judicial Conference doing its thing.
No, we are upset about this "Heads we win, Tails you lose" bullshyte.
The real question is how many national injunctions have been issued in the past decade, and how many helped the left...
Reed O'Connor still gets everything filed in Witchita Falls: https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/orders/3-343.pdf
RE: "How Many Judges Sit In Single Judge Divisions?"
One, of course. (Doioioioi!)
Proving that your user name is apt!
Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?
At least this is in the nature of a policy argument.
But I think it’s a rather weak one. Even a single judge who serves as a magnet for particular kinds of cases and issues rulings that impose nationwide injunctions that constantly have to be reversed on appeal can still wreck havoc and can represent a problem needing to be solved.
And it’s not just conservative judges. There have also been issues with outlier liberal judges serving as magnets for particular kinds of cases, constantly getting reversed, and yet finding ways around the reversals.
Maybe we could have some kind of organization within the federal judiciary be responsible for planning the assignment of judges to or from districts, and they could move any judge who acts in an extreme or exceedingly biased way to a large district.
I'm just spitballing here.
It's called "Impeachment" and ought to be used more often.
This is a lot of work, but also doesn't really seem all that relevant; any problem that exists with a single judge division exists with a two judge division (or a single judge division with a practice of diverting some but not many cases to other divisions). The underlying problem is that there is a strategic incentive to choose a venue over another venue that is not rationally connected to the facts of the case.
But also I'm not really sure I understand the argument: you have uncovered that the "worst offender" when it comes to the problem the being addressed is, in fact, the worst offender. You've uncovered there is not a widespread problem in the judiciary, there's just one guy. Okay? And? I am sure many advocates for change would readily admit their problem is with that one guy. What now?
I'm wondering about the practicalities of the proposed case assignment process, and a few other questions.
If a case is filed in division A, but gets randomly assigned to a judge from division B, does the judge have to travel to the division A courthouse for just that one case, or is the case effectively transferred to division B?
Is this really a problem with how cases are assigned, or is it a problem with the venue rules?
Would this be better handled via changes to the rules governing venue?
Perhaps require state governments suing the feds to file in the federal district court division that covers the state capital.
"Perhaps require state governments suing the feds to file in the federal district court division that covers the state capital."
That is the leftists wet dream because the state capitol is inevitably a bastion of blue, no matter how red the state.
Ed, pray tell how the political leanings of a red state capitol impact the President's nomination of a federal district judge candidate ?
Hint to give you a start: Even a Blue President's nominee is typically one approved by the Red state's federal senators.
Hmmmm…
Well, only the one Josh mentions, though several others (around a half-dozen, though that depends on how rigid your filter) are positioned such that the practical effect is the same.
But the the fact that their numbers are low, magnifies the problem that needs to be solved: that so few local district judges have such an immediate, outsized impact on matters of national import.
And managing that, not Josh’s multi-day logorrheic hissy fit, is the issue here.