The Justice Store

There is an article on the BBC's website about "Judge shopping;" the practice of filing cases in particular courts in order to ensure that it lands in front of a judge who is sympathetic to the filer's viewpoint or desired outcome.

One of the people quoted in the article is University of Michigan Law Professor Nicholas Bagley, who notes: "I think there's an intuition that we all share, that whether you win or lose your case shouldn't depend on the judge that you happen to draw."

And I think that while this may be broadly true, it might be worth digging a little more deeply into. The "Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine" the plaintiffs in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, likely feel that the outcome shouldn't depend on which judge hears a case, because all judges should be opposed to the practice of abortion to the point that they're willing to strike down laws or regulations that allow for it. Of course, they aren't the only ones who believe that they've hit upon a self-evident moral truth that any legitimate legal system should uphold.

The difference between going to the courts to effectively ask a question of law and going to the courts to ask that they impose one's predetermined answer on others is an important one. Especially when, as now, the court system itself doesn't appear to be interested in the distinction. If the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine did specifically pick the venue because they new that the case would end up in front of Judge Kacsmaryk, it's unlikely the judge himself had no suspicion of this, given that his preferences concerning abortion are well known. And that willingness to be an instrument for people and organizations that judges agree with is what undermines the idea that justice is impartial.