Lawyers accused of ‘judge shopping’ in Alabama when bringing cases against law banning child sex changes

Last week, US District Judge Liles C. Burke of the Northern District of Alabama unsealed an October 2023 report that revealed 11 out of 39 lawyers for plaintiffs challenging the ban of sex-change procedures tried to circumvent random case assignment procedures. The report was conducted by a panel of three Alabama federal judges after Burke expressed concerns about judge shopping.

At the same time the report was revealed, Burke also unsealed his order to show cause, which was initially filed in February.

The three federal judges wrote in the unsealed report, “It is one thing for attorneys to fret about potential judicial assignments before the ball is snapped (i.e. before a case is assigned). It is another to try to change the play after the case has been assigned.”

According to the ABA Journal, lawyers for the plaintiffs dropped two suits challenging the law after the cases ended up before Burke, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.

Shortly after they dropped the cases, a new suit was filed with different plaintiffs in the Middle District of Alabama, where US District Judge Myron H. Thompson, an appointee of former President Jimmy Carter, serves.

According to the Associated Press, lawyers for the plaintiffs had originally failed to get one of the two original cases regarding sex changes on driver’s licenses before Thompson by marking the civil cover sheet of the suit related to a previous case in which Thompson ruled for the plaintiffs.

On May 22 and 23, the 11 lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Alabama, the Southern Poverty Law Center, GLBTQ Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, Lightfoot Franklin & White, Cooley, and King & Spalding are scheduled to appear before Burke for a sanctions hearing during which the judge will ask the lawyers to show cause why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for judge shopping and for misrepresenting or failing to disclose key facts during the inquiry.

According to the ABA Journal, some of the lawyers were also ordered to show cause whether they should be sanctioned for intentionally misleading the three-judge panel.