>

More judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.
The Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.
It’s a problem.  Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you.  There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season. >

Would an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge? >

Yes, absolutely. >

Not sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court. >

There's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government.  It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not "districts", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.
That or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits. >

To give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the "general court" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.
Each of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.
Edit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights. >

Yeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate "administrative court" that checks the executive;  the US has "administrative law judges" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic "we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing" mentality.
US should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents. >

This seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts.  The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.
So variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis.  Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.
Ideally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned.  With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.
Also, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all. >


something best dealt with through appeals processes

One of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.
That's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.