The Frank M. Johnson Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama, seen on January 24, 2023. A federal judge sanctioned three lawyers for allegedly manipulating case assignments in a lawsuit over the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
A federal judge in Alabama issued an order reprimanding three attorneys for allegedly judge-shopping in the youth gender-affirming care case against the state.
U.S. District Judge Liles C. Burke concluded attorneys Melody Eagan, Jeffrey Doss and Carl Charles acted in bad faith to manipulate the court’s random case-assignment procedures during a “high-profile” challenge to a state law banning certain medical treatments for transgender minors. The 2022 law criminalizes the prescription of puberty blockers and hormone therapies for transgender youth.
“Enough is enough. Judges are not political operatives. To the contrary, the integrity of the justice system rests on the steadfast commitment of an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law,” Burke wrote in the 230-page order.
He declined to issue sanctions for the other eight attorneys investigated.
The court found that in April 2022, the attorneys sought to avoid having their cases heard by Burke by voluntarily dismissing two related lawsuits and refiling them with new plaintiffs in the Middle District of Alabama. Evidence presented during the investigation showed the attorneys believed their clients faced “slim to none” odds of success before Burke, leading to maneuvering the case assignment process in hopes of getting a more favorable judge.
Eagan and Doss were found to have organized the voluntary dismissals to avoid Burke, and the investigation found their actions reflected a “clear and intentional” attempt to manipulate the judicial process.
Charles was found to have repeatedly misrepresented facts regarding a phone call he made to a judge’s chambers.
Burke publicly reprimanded Eagan and Doss, disqualified them from further participation in the case and referred their conduct to the Alabama State Bar for potential disciplinary action.
Burke also “publicly” reprimanded Charles and fined him $5,000, saying he “intentionally misrepresented or otherwise failed to disclose key facts to the panel by testifying falsely … ,” and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for further review.
“This was not just a strategic litigation decision; it was a calculated effort to subvert the rule of law,” Judge Burke wrote.
All three lawyers must provide a copy of the ruling to their clients, opposing counsel, and judges in any pending state or federal case, as well as their employer.
The legal challenge to Alabama’s transgender health care law is ongoing and began shortly after Alabama enacted the law in April 2022. Two teams of attorneys filed lawsuits in the Northern District of Alabama seeking to block the law before it took effect. But after the cases were reassigned to Burke, both teams voluntarily dismissed their suits and refiled a similar case in the Middle District of Alabama.
Burke said that concerns over procedural fairness did not justify the attorneys’ actions, particularly given that the plaintiffs ultimately secured an emergency injunction against the law from Burke.
“Plaintiffs’ counsel received all that they sought from the very judge they’d found suspicious and had worked so hard to avoid,” Burke wrote.
He added that such actions undermine public trust in the judiciary.
“Judge-shopping is an affront to the rule of law. It erodes public confidence in judicial impartiality, burdens courts with procedural glut, and casts unwarranted suspicion on judges and case assignments alike,” Burke wrote. “In short, it poses an intolerable threat to the fair and orderly administration of justice.”