Conservative groups are already vowing to sue in federal court to halt President Biden’s new immigration amnesty proposals, as they did during the Obama administration, but new procedures against “judge shopping” in the judiciary could make it more difficult to stop the program in court. 

Mr. Biden’s proposals, announced on the 12th anniversary of President Obama’s “dreamers” program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival, aim to allow more than half a million illegal immigrants to obtain lawful permanent status without leaving the country as long as they’re married to Americans and have lived in America for 10 or more years. His plan also would make it easier for noncitizens, including DACA recipients, to acquire work visas. 

Yet, these days, it could be harder to obtain a national injunction to block the Biden administration’s policies. That’s because of growing concerns about “judge shopping” — the practice of both liberal and conservative lawyers finding sympathetic judges to unilaterally block a president’s policy plans — and pushback against the idea of a singular district judge being able to shape policy for the entire nation.

Lawyers arguing against Mr. Obama’s DACA policies faced criticism for “judge shopping” when they successfully persuaded a judge in the Southern District of Texas to issue an injunction on the DACA policies. On the flip side, liberal district judges issued a slew of injunctions against President Trump’s policies while he was in office. 

“In some instances, there may be good legal reasons for such injunctions,” two law professors, Ryan Owens and Ryan Black, wrote in an analysis on judge shopping for the Hill. “Still, one cannot escape the monarchical power that a single unelected judge enjoys under this approach.”

Perhaps the most contentious incident of “judge shopping” involved anti-abortion conservatives getting a crucial case in front of Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Amarillo, Texas, who then issued a surprise ruling last year outlawing mifepristone, also known as “the abortion pill.” Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down restrictions on mifepristone.

A columnist for the liberal publication Vox last year called judge shopping “the Matthew Kacsmaryk problem.”

The U.S. Judicial Conference announced earlier this year that it would crack down on judge shopping by strengthening its policy requiring randomly assigned judges for lawsuits affecting whole states or the country. The judiciary noted that debate was growing over the topic after several high-profile and contentious cases seeking injunctions were filed in single-judge court divisions. 

In March, Los Angeles Times wrote that the Judicial Conference’s efforts to limit judge shopping was “aimed at right-wing activists and politicians who have filed their cases in federal courthouses presided over by highly partisan judges in Texas. Most of those judges were appointed by Donald Trump.”

The outcome of legal action over the Biden administration’s latest immigration policies — and whether they will be blocked by a federal judge — is expected to be watched closely by both sides of the political spectrum. 

America First Legal was quick to promise a lawsuit on Tuesday, saying that Mr. Biden’s latest proposals are an attempt to act unilaterally on an issue that should be regulated by Congress. 

“In the middle of a raging deadly border invasion, on the heels of illegal aliens let into the country by Biden being charged with the most heinous rapes and murders of children and mothers, Biden has issued one of the largest executive amnesties in American history,” America First Legal’s president, Stephen Miller, who was one of Mr. Trump’s top policy advisers, said. By “acting as a tyrant king, Biden is circumventing Congress and incinerating the Constitution to unilaterally grant a pathway to citizenship to what will amount to potentially millions of illegals.”

The program will be a “colossal amnesty and a thunderous attack on American democracy in the form of an imperial edict,” he said, adding that Mr. Biden’s order amounts to “saying the invasion will continue forever, and the criminal migrant trespassers will be our new voters and citizens.”

The Biden administration is preparing for legal challenges from Republican-led states including Texas, CBS News notes, and Mr. Biden will likely argue that the executive branch has been forced to take action in the absence of Congress making immigration reforms. The Sun has reached out to Governor Abbott and Texas’s attorney general’s office to ask whether Texas is planning to sue. 

“President Biden’s mass amnesty announcement is blatantly illegal and is a desperate pandering for votes in his failing re-election bid,” Mr. Abbott said in a statement when the plan was announced, adding that it will be “stricken down by the courts.”

Mr. Biden’s election-year immigration announcement comes as he has been courting Latino voters during his campaign. 

 “I need you, I need you badly,” he told Latino voters at a campaign speech in Arizona this spring. “I need the help. Kamala and I desperately need your help.” Yet Mr. Biden said he’s “not interested in playing politics” on immigration. “I’m interested in fixing it,” he said this week while unveiling the new executive action.