Rules for Thee, Not for Me: Mass Attitudes on Judge Shopping

ABSTRACT Objective The goal of this project is to understand if the practice of judge shopping—strategically filing federal lawsuits to increase the likelihood of a favorable judge—raises concerns about fair judicial procedures. We examine how this practice reflects a broader loyalty‐fairness trade‐off in public evaluations of legal institutions, and the potential venues for this practice. Method We conduct a unique preregistered survey experiment to understand the public's reactions to this practice. We also identify geographic opportunities for judge shopping based off of the presence of single‐judge divisions. Results We find that the public broadly dislikes judge shopping: it increases support for reform, perceptions of politicization, and perceived threats to rights. However, reactions depend on partisan context. When the out‐party engages in judge shopping, respondents find it unfair and political; when the in‐party does so, fairness concerns recede. Also, prior to Trump v. CASA (2025), liberals and conservatives had relatively equal access to single‐judge divisions, which provides context for public attitudes. Conclusion Overall, our results show that even nonjudicial behavior shapes court perceptions, and fairness concerns are applied instrumentally.