The Judicial Conference of the United States made headlines last March when it instituted a new policy designed to prevent plaintiffs from strategically choosing a particular court (and really a particular judge) to hear their cases. The move toward random case assignment was an effort to balance a plaintiff’s traditional power to choose the forum (subject to important jurisdictional and venue limitations) against the growing scourge of “judge shopping” in cases seeking nationwide injunctions against federal government policies.
The Illinois Supreme Court is now confronting a similar question about a plaintiff’s limits on the choice of forum. In 2023, the Illinois legislature passed a law that requires constitutional challenges to state laws to be filed in either Cook County (the state’s largest county) or Sangamon County (the seat of state government). The law appears to have been a reaction to a series of lawsuits challenging legislation ending cash bail, banning assault weapons, or mandating specific actions in light of COVID-19. By limiting such suits (and those like them) to two designated counties, the state can restrict plaintiffs from selecting a court elsewhere in the state whose judges might be more sympathetic to a constitutional challenge. (Remember that Illinois trial judges are elected, and their political leanings may be easier to decipher as a result.)
But what if the plaintiff’s closest and most convenient court is not one of the two designated in the law? In the case now before the Illinois Supreme Court, a gun shop located in East Alton (just across the border from St. Louis, Missouri) brought a challenge to the constitutionality of a 2023 firearms regulation. The case was filed in Madison County, the plaintiff’s home county, whose courthouse is located about half an hour away. Citing the forum shopping law, the state (as defendant) tried to move the case to Sangamon County, which is about 90 minutes away. The judge based in Madison County denied the motion, arguing that forum shopping law denied parties their due process rights by depriving them of their ability to mount their best possible case. The state appealed.
On the face of it, this case is not an obvious example of forum shopping. The Madison County court is indeed the home court of the plaintiff and the most convenient location. Moreover, if judges are randomly assigned cases within a judicial circuit, Madison County does not provide a strategic advantage over Sangamon County. The former (located in the state’s Third Judicial Circuit) has 20 circuit judges; the latter (located in the Seventh Judicial Circuit) has 21. In either case a random assignment would give a plaintiff only a 5% chance of landing a specific judge.
Underlying all of this is the state legislature’s engagement in the administrative workings of the courts. It will be interesting to see how the state supreme court untangles this issue.
The Interdependent Third Branch 