During former President Donald Trump’s first term, numerous left-wing interest groups turned to courts populated with liberal federal judges in states like California, Hawaii, and Washington. Thanks to the Senate’s “blue slip” policy—an informal rule enabling home-state senators to block district court nominees—these groups were likely to find judges aligned with their ideology. As a result, these district court judges issued a series of broad injunctions, delaying various Trump policies for years while the Department of Justice filed appeals. Consequently, many of Trump’s initiatives were either halted or significantly stalled by these left-wing groups.
When President Joe Biden took office, savvy Republicans launched their own legal challenges. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been notably effective in securing injunctions in specific Texas federal courts against Biden’s numerous overreaches. In response, leftists are now attempting to undermine Paxton by targeting a tool he has used effectively: the single-judge division.
Congress organizes federal district courts by state, district, and division. For example, Illinois has three districts: the Northern, Southern, and Central Districts. The Northern District contains two divisions: the Western Division, located in the small city of Rockford with just one active judge, and the larger Eastern Division, which has approximately two dozen active judges in Chicago. Similarly, Texas has multiple districts, each with several divisions. One of these is the Amarillo Division of the Northern District of Texas, which has only one active judge: Matthew Kacsmaryk.
Judge Kacsmaryk has provoked anger among leftists with multiple rulings that blocked Biden administration policies. One notable decision was his finding that the Food and Drug Administration had improperly approved the abortion pill mifepristone. Although the U.S. Supreme Court later reversed this ruling, it never took effect because Judge Kacsmaryk chose to stay it.
Left-wing activists are now seeking to leverage the Judicial Conference—essentially a supervisory body of the federal judiciary—to eliminate the use of single-judge divisions in injunction cases against the federal or state government. Earlier this year, the Judicial Conference issued “advisory guidelines” suggesting that all cases be randomly assigned across the district, regardless of which division receives the filing.
Conservatives have rightly objected to this apparent ideological power grab. For instance, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out that the relevant congressional statute—28 U.S.C. § 137—clearly grants district courts the authority to manage their own case assignments.
Now, just weeks before a crucial election, leftists are intensifying their efforts to push through a rule in the Judicial Conference’s Rules Committee that would convert the previously “advisory” guidance into a mandatory requirement. This move caters to demands from figures like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Biden Justice Department. The Judicial Conference claims authority under the Rules Enabling Act, a 1930s statute that allows it to set rules for civil and criminal procedures in the federal judiciary.
However, it is Congress—not the judiciary—that holds the ultimate power to reject any rules established under the Rules Enabling Act. Congress should be ready to assert this authority if the Judicial Conference attempts to enforce its mandate on single-judge divisions.
Regardless of the election outcome, it’s important to highlight the left’s recent attempt to undermine established judicial norms out of frustration over inconsistent case outcomes. This effort echoes Justice Elena Kagan’s outlandish suggestion that lower federal courts should oversee the Supreme Court’s recusal decisions. The proposal currently before the Judicial Conference’s Rules Committee capitulates to the complaints of leftist commentators upset about politically sensitive rulings. It represents a blatant political power grab.
If the Rules Committee approves the proposal, the Supreme Court must take a stand. The justices have made many decisions that leftists oppose, leading to a wave of high-profile political and physical attacks against the court in recent years. Justices’ homes have frequently been targeted by protests, and Nicholas Roske, a pro-abortion activist from California, even attempted to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and his family following the May 2022 leak of the draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which returned the authority to regulate abortion to state legislatures.
Justices have encountered baseless ethics complaints as well. For example, some progressives have called for Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from January 6-related cases due to his wife’s flag preferences. The Judicial Conference’s initiative to eliminate single-judge divisions is another such challenge. For years, Judge William Wayne Justice, a staunch leftist in Tyler, Texas, ran a single-division court where litigants seeking liberal outcomes frequently filed cases. There were no changes to Judicial Conference rules, no protests from Senate leaders, and the American Bar Association didn’t issue any resolutions of disapproval. It’s interesting how that plays out!
Congress has the ability to take action and has the leverage to do so. Currently, the Judicial Conference is urging the U.S. House to pass two separate bills related to judges. One bill would create around 66 new federal judgeships, while the other would extend some temporary positions. The House Judiciary Committee should refuse to consider either bill until the Judicial Conference commits to not changing the case-assignment process through its less transparent committees. Congress should insist that if the Judicial Conference seeks modifications to the case-assignment procedures, it must pursue new authorizing legislation to avoid conflicts with 28 U.S.C. § 137. As the sole body responsible for writing federal law under the Constitution, Congress must reject the Judicial Conference’s questionable interpretation of the Rules Enabling Act regarding delegated power.
The reality is that if one side can use legal means to halt or postpone a president’s policies, the other side should have the same chance. Progressives try to differentiate the current scenario by arguing that litigants like Paxton are selecting a specific judge, but their own practice of filing in districts filled with ardent leftists is fundamentally similar. Unfortunately, intellectual consistency isn’t always a strong point for the left.
In recent years, left-wing legal observers have faced a challenging landscape, witnessing many of their once-valued victories eroded or overturned. In response, they are now pushing extreme proposals to pack the Supreme Court, subject the justices’ recusal decisions to the authority of lower courts, and other radical ideas. These efforts pose a serious threat to judicial independence, reminiscent of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempts in the late 1930s to pack the courts amid setbacks to his New Deal legislation. Just as a Democratic-controlled Congress rejected Roosevelt’s dangerous court-packing initiative, the Supreme Court and Congress must also oppose these new efforts, including the Judicial Conference’s proposal to eliminate single-judge divisions in politically sensitive cases.
