Due to former President Chen's criminal trial, the subject of case assignment has not only attracted much attention but became a controversial issue recently in Taiwan. Almost all relevant discussions on this subject are based upon the German doctrine of Gesetzlichen Richter. This article purports to examine this issue from a different perspective, discussing the relevant rules regulating case assignment in the U.S. federal district courts and analyzing the attitude expressed in their case law. Moreover, this article also examines the principles established in No. 665 Interpretation of the Taiwan Constitutional Court and compares such principles with the U.S. doctrines. The federal courts consistently hold that the court has inherent authority to decide how to assign cases among judges and a party has no right to any particular procedure for the selection of the judges. Nevertheless, the U.S. law still recognizes that due process requires case assignment based upon the principle of neutrality in or der to prevent manipulation of case assignment to affect case outcomes. The examination of the U.S. law provides valuable insights for the Taiwanese courts. This article argues that while the Taiwan Constitution does not explicitly provides the principle of neutrality of case assignment, the Taiwan Constitutional Court correctly establishes this requirement through the interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions regarding due process as well as a fair trail. This article further makes a number of suggestions with regard to how Taiwan could reform its system to enforce the neutrality principle and to enhance the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial system.