FEDERAL COURTS NOW REQUIRE THAT JUDICIAL ASSIGNMENTS BE RANDOMLY ASSIGNED DISTRICT-WIDE, AND NOT TO JUDGES IN DIVISIONS WHERE FILED THAT CONTAIN ONLY ONE DISTRICT JUDGE

To: Judges, United States District Courts District Court Executives Clerks, United States District Courts From: Judge Chair, Gregory Vanon Tatenhove Court Administration 5 and Case Management RE (GUIDANCE FOR CIVIL CASE ASSIGNMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURTS At its March 2024 session, the Judicial Conference, upon recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM), approved the following policy regarding case assignment practices: District courts should apply district-wide assignment to: a. civil actions seeking to bar or mandate statewide enforcement of a state aw, including arule, regulation, policy, or order of the executive branch ora state agency, whether by declaratory judgment and/or any form of injunctive relief; and b. civil actions seeking to bar or mandate nationwide enforcement of a federal law, including a rule, regulation, policy, or order of the executive branch or a federal agency. whether by declaratory judgment and/or any form of injunctive relict. On behalf of the CACM Committee, I write to share the attached Guidance for Civil Case Assignment in District Courts. The guidance supports implementation of the above policy, which is applicable in instances when the remedy sought has implications beyond the partes before the court and the local community, and the importance of having a case heard by a judge with ties to COMMITTEE ON COURT ADMINISTRATION AND CASE MANAGEMENT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, Chair Robin S. Rosenbaum Joseph F. Bianco Brendan L. Shannon Nora Barry Fischer Leo Sorokin John Z. Lee Kathryn H. Vratil Trevor N. McFadden Brian C. Wimes Susie Morgan B. Lynn Winmill Michael J. Roemer Melissa Aubin, Clerk Representative David A. Levine, Staff March 15, 2024 MEMORANDUM To: Judges, United States District Courts District Court Executives Clerks, United States District Courts From: Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove Chair, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management RE: GUIDANCE FOR CIVIL CASE ASSIGNMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURTS At its March 2024 session, the Judicial Conference, upon recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM), approved the following policy regarding case assignment practices: District courts should apply district-wide assignment to: a. civil actions seeking to bar or mandate statewide enforcement of a state law, including a rule, regulation, policy, or order of the executive branch or a state agency, whether by declaratory judgment and/or any form of injunctive relief; and b. civil actions seeking to bar or mandate nationwide enforcement of a federal law, including a rule, regulation, policy, or order of the executive branch or a federal agency, whether by declaratory judgment and/or any form of injunctive relief. On behalf of the CACM Committee, I write to share the attached Guidance for Civil Case Assignment in District Courts. The guidance supports implementation of the above policy, which is applicable in instances when the remedy sought has implications beyond the parties before the court and the local community, and the importance of having a case heard by a judge with ties to Guidance for Civil Case Assignment in the District Courts Page 2 the local community is not a compelling factor. And it provides general guidance in civil case assignment practices. ‘The guidance is predicated on the Judicial Conferences long standing policies supporting the random assignment of cases and ensuring that district judges remain generalists. The most crucial tool in achieving these policy goals is the case assignment practices or methods employed in dividing the business of the court. Case assignment practices or methods that do not reflect the longstanding Judicial Conference policy of random case assignment tend to undermine the independence of the branch and the trust of the public in the judiciary. “These policies and the accompanying guidance inform the district courts” statutory authority and discretion to divide the business of the court pursuant to 28 US.C. § 137. They should not be viewed as impairing a court’s authority or discretion. Instead, they set out various ways for courts to align their case assignment practices with the longstanding Judicial Conference policy of random case assignment. Simply put, these policies should serve the purpose of securing a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ.P.1