The federal judiciary is facing new calls from civil rights, abortion and immigration advocates to end the practice of “judge shopping” by state attorneys general and activists who sue over government policies in courthouses where a single judge seen as likely sympathetic to their cases is almost guaranteed to hear their lawsuits. Nine groups led by the National Immigration Law Center sent letters to the chief judges of Texas’ four federal district courts where many Biden administration policies have been challenged. Read more about the letters.
The groups’ proposals add to calls by Democratic lawmakers and the American Bar Association for the judiciary to eliminate case assignment mechanisms that allow litigants to effectively choose their judges in litigation challenging government policies. The Biden administration has also raised concerns.
|
It’s hard to envision a more sympathetic plaintiff than a chubby-cheeked baby being spoon-fed pureed sweet potatoes or rice cereal. Now imagine the food is tainted with toxic heavy metals including lead and arsenic that could cause brain damage. That’s what a congressional subcommittee in 2021 found – but lawsuits have been slow to materialize, and plaintiffs are now 0 for 2. In her latest column, Jenna Greene looks at the litigation and the hurdles that plaintiffs face in making their case that heavy metals in baby food can cause autism and ADHD.
Check out other recent pieces from all our columnists: Alison Frankel, Jenna Greene and Hassan Kanu
|
