Maddow Blog | Controversial judge blocks enforcement of background check rule

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointed jurist in Texas, has earned a reputation as one of the nation’s most controversial federal judges. It was, for example, Kacsmaryk who took it upon himself to suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone last year, relying in large part on highly dubious studies — which have since been retracted.

This week, the same conservative made national news again. The Associated Press reported:

As part of the developments, Kacsmaryk granted an injunction against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, preventing the Biden administration from fully implementing the new federal policy — but only in Texas.

The case was filed in the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas, which is a very busy place for important lawsuits with national implications. It was, after all, just 10 days earlier when U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman — another Trump-appointed jurist in the same district — halted the Biden administration’s policy on lowering credit cards late fees before it could take effect.

It’s probably not a coincidence that lawyers representing big banks and major credit card companies filed their case in this specific district.

Indeed, it’s a remarkably popular venue for conservatives looking for legal victories: As my MSNBC colleague Ja’han Jones recently noted, an outfit called the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty filed suit in the hopes of getting the Minority Business Development Agency to start serving white people. Wouldn’t you know it, they also brought their case to the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas.

Remember the Republican case to destroy the entirety of the Affordable Care Act? It was filed in the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas. Remember the case undermining the Navy’s vaccine requirements? It was also filed in the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas.

The tactic goes by different names. I’ve seen it referred to as “forum shopping,” “judge shopping,” “venue shopping,” and “court shopping,” but the phrases all mean the same thing: Instead of simply taking one’s chances in the judiciary, many litigants effectively try to hand-pick ideologically aligned jurists, by filing their cases in specific districts, in order to guarantee success before the process even begins in earnest.

After Kacsmaryk’s ruling yesterday on requiring firearms dealers to run background checks on buyers at gun shows, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer took the opportunity, not just to express his disagreement with the ruling, but also denounce the strategy that brought this case to Kacsmaryk’s courtroom in the first place.

“Today was supposed to be a significant day for gun safety in America,” the New York Democrat said. “Today was supposed to be the day new rules closing loopholes on background checks went into effect — rules that Democrats and Republicans worked on together when we passed the bipartisan gun safety bill two years ago.

“But surprise, surprise: MAGA radicals have put background check reforms on ice by going to their favorite judge in the entire country, in the Northern District of Texas, and getting him to rubber stamp a nationwide injunction. Today’s ridiculous injunction is yet again another consequence of judge shopping, that deeply unfair practice where radicals virtually guarantee favorable outcomes by going in court to a sympathetic judge of their choice.”

Schumer added that he still intends to move forward with legislation intended to address this practice, which Republicans will no doubt oppose. Watch this space.

This article was originally published on MSNBC.com