Business
Column: Courts finally move to end right-wing judge shopping, but the damage may already be done
Some lawsuits are won by smart lawyers and some on the facts. But nothing spells success as much as the ability to pick your own judge.
That’s the lesson taught by conservative activists who have moved in federal courts to overturn government programs and policies on abortion, contraception, immigration, gun control, student loan relief and vaccine mandates, among other issues.
In recent years they’ve gamed the judicial system to get their lawsuits heard by judges they knew would be sure to see things their way. The process is known as judge shopping, and the committee that makes policy for the federal courts just moved to put an end to it.
The courts have now formally recognized the need to do something about a really troubling pattern of judge shopping.
— Amanda Shanor, University of Pennsylvania constitutional law expert
In a policy statement and official guidance issued last week, the Judicial Conference of the United States said that henceforth, any lawsuit seeking a statewide or nationwide injunction against a government policy or action should be assigned at random to a judge in the federal district where it’s filed.
If that sounds a bit vague to the layperson, its target is crystal clear to legal experts: It’s 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.
It would be bad enough if those judges’ rulings applied only within their judicial districts or affected only the plaintiffs. But the judges have issued sweeping nationwide injunctions that block government programs and policies coast-to-coast.
As Ian Millhiser of Vox put it, this is America’s “Matthew Kacsmaryk problem.” Kacsmaryk is the Trump-appointed Texas federal judge who most recently attempted to outlaw mifepristone, a widely used abortion medication, nationwide. His April 2023 ruling has been temporarily stayed by the Supreme Court, but it’s still on the docket, ticking away.
But Kacsmaryk is not alone. As recently as March 8, Judge J. Campbell Barker, a Trump appointee who presides over 50% of the civil cases filed in his rustic courthouse in Tyler, Texas, invalidated a ruling by the National Labor Relations Board broadening the standard by which big corporations could be held jointly responsible for the welfare and unionization rights of workers employed by their franchisees.
How serious a blow could the judicial conference’s policy be to conservatives aiming to roll back civil rights? Massive, judging from the reaction of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Only 48 hours after the conference announced its initiative, McConnell wrote to the chief judges of all judicial districts urging them to ignore the new policy.
This was an audacious move, considering that the presiding officer of the Judicial Council is Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., its membership comprises the chief judges of the 12 judicial circuits and one judge from a district court in each circuit, and its role is to set policy for the entire federal court system.
McConnell asserted that only Congress can make the rules for the assignment of federal trial judges, but that’s dubious. In an analysis last year, the Justice Department concluded that the Supreme Court has full authority to impose rules of civil procedure in the federal courts, including a rule mandating that all federal judicial districts assign judges randomly to civil lawsuits aimed at statewide or nationwide injunctions. The Judicial Council’s policy isn’t the same as as a Supreme Court rule, but it’s a fair bet that if pushed, the court would issue the rule.
McConnell also asserted that the Judicial Conference had been pressured into acting by Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), but that’s untrue. Although Schumer has spoken out against judge shopping, numerous legal experts and Roberts himself have expressed concerns about the practice.
“The courts have now formally recognized the need to do something about a really troubling pattern of judge shopping,” Amanda Shanor, a constitutional law expert at the University of Pennsylvania, said of the Judicial Conference’s initiative.
What’s yet unclear is whether the conference’s initiative goes far enough. Its policy statement is described as “guidance,” not a mandate. it acknowledges the district courts’ “authority and discretion” to manage their dockets as they see fit.
Last year, Shanor, with Alice Clapman and Jennifer Ahearn of NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice, proposed that the conference require all judicial districts to use a “random or blind procedure” to distribute cases among all the judges in the district when the litigants seek an injunction or other relief that would extend beyond the district’s borders.
The practice traditionally labeled “forum shopping” is not especially new. The earliest case cited by legal experts dates back to 1842, when a litigant chose to file a lawsuit in federal rather than state court in New York to gain a strategic advantage over his adversary.
Plaintiffs have been known to choose a venue based on local statutes of limitation, or a sense that juries in a region might be more amenable to their case, or because their location may be more convenient for parties or witnesses.
More recently, however, the practice has been heavily abused for partisan and ideological purposes. This results from two trends. One is the increasing partisanship of individual federal judges, especially those appointed by Trump. The second is those judges’ habit of issuing nationwide injunctions against government policies or programs.
Nationwide injunctions can impose parochial partisan ideologies on the whole country. Through 2023, the state of Texas filed more than 31 federal lawsuits challenging Biden administration policies — but not a single one in federal court in Austin, which is the state capital but an island of blue in a red state.
The state had filed seven lawsuits in Amarillo, where by local procedure every one was automatically assigned to Kacsmaryk; six in Victoria, where all civil cases are assigned to Trump appointee Drew B. Tipton; and four in Galveston, where all civil cases come before Trump appointee Jeff Brown.
The rest were filed in divisions with two judges, most of whom are also Trump appointees or conservative appointees of George W. Bush. In the Tyler division from which Barker issued his NLRB decision, all the cases he doesn’t get are assigned to Judge Jeremy Kernodle, also a Trump appointee.
Although some nationwide injunctions have been lifted by the Supreme Court, that process seldom happens speedily. The result is that the plaintiffs effectively win by losing, as injunctions against government policies can have “the lasting systemic effect of blocking these policies for months or years,” Shanor, Clapman and Ahearn observed.
Kacsmaryk got the mifepristone case for two reasons. First, antiabortion activists knew of his strong antiabortion inclinations. Second, the policy in the Northern District of Texas is to assign cases to judges in the division where they’re filed.
Kacsmaryk is the only judge sitting in the Amarillo division of the Northern District of Texas. So it was an easy call for the mifepristone plaintiffs to file there, knowing that their chance of drawing Kacsmaryk as their judge was 100%.
The same pattern drove plaintiffs to file lawsuits against Biden administration initiatives in the same district’s Fort Worth division, which has two judges, Trump appointee Mark T. Pittman and George W. Bush appointee Reed O’Connor. Both have been sought by conservative litigants. O’Connor also presides over 100% of the cases filed in the district’s Wichita Falls courthouse, where he is the only judge.
Pittman obligingly overturned Biden’s student loan relief program in 2022. Just this month, he ruled the government’s 55-year-old Minority Business Development Agency to be unconstitutional and ordered it opened to contract applicants of all races — obviously a ruling that defeats the purpose of a program designed to help minorities get a start in the business world. O’Connor tried to declare the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional in 2018. The Supreme Court overruled him in 2021.
The judicial conference’s initiative is long overdue.
Customarily, rulings by federal trial judges have constituted precedents binding at most on other judges in a particular judicial district or resulted in court orders benefiting only the plaintiffs who filed the case.
Matters are different “when a court effectively can bind the entire nation with an injunction” that applies to “an unlimited range of persons and to conduct occurring in … an equally unlimited array of places,” legal scholar Ronald A. Cass wrote in 2018.
The prospect of sweeping rulings incentivizes “an extreme race to courthouses more inclined to issue nationwide injunctions and more sympathetic to the plaintiff’s position,” Cass wrote.
In its latest incarnation, “litigants effectively have the ability to effectively choose an actual judge,” Shanor told me.
“We don’t know how the policy will be rolled out, what exactly is in it, or how much of it is a recommendation rather than a requirement,” she says. “A policy may be effective, but having a rule would advance the fairness and randomness of the distribution of these nationally important cases, and ensure the perceived legitimacy of the courts.”
One is that the policy won’t apply to cases that have already been assigned to a judge. Another is that litigants can still try to game the system by filing their lawsuits in states from which appeals are heard by circuit courts known to have a particular partisan lean.
That’s a major issue with Texas cases, which are funneled on appeal to the 5th Circuit, sitting in New Orleans. That court has been the source of right-wing decisions so loopy that they’ve been slapped down by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Of that circuit’s 17 active judges, six are Trump appointees.
McConnell’s objection to the Judicial Conference’s policy thus should be seen in context. He had more to do than anyone else with embedding Trumpian judges in the federal judiciary, where they wreak havoc on government policies and programs that help ordinary Americans, not just corporations and the rich. The conference’s initiative may be the first step toward a more fair-minded judiciary, but it’s a crucial one.
Business
Grocery Outlet restarts expansion with new California branches
Grocery Outlet is opening new locations across California, rebuilding its network in the Golden State after closing stores early this year.
A new branch in Ontario Ranch is scheduled to open July 23, and more openings are planned for later this summer.
The location will be operated by independent owners Gloria and Jason Pineda. By the end of August, the discount grocery retailer plans to open stores in Ramona, San Francisco, Clovis and Petaluma as well.
The Emeryville, Calif.-based chain announced the closure of 36 stores in March, including nine California locations. The closures were an attempt to roll back an overexpansion in the wrong markets, resulting in a loss in 2025. Grocery Outlet did not announce which locations would be closed at the time, but they were listed for sublease by advisory firm Gordon Bros.
Among those listed was an Ontario location closer than seven miles from the soon-to-open site.
Five other Southern California locations were marked for closing in Azusa, Brawley, El Cajon, La Habra, Ontario and Poway. In Central California, the Kerman, Patterson and Ridgecrest stores were also listed for sublease. Outside of California, stores in Idaho, New Jersey, Maryland, Ohio and Pennsylvania also were listed.
In an earnings call in May, Grocery Outlet Chief Executive Jason Potter said the restructuring was helping boost the company’s profit.
“These closures are now complete and have improved fleet quality and will strengthen the earnings profile of the business over time,” he said.
Grocery Outlet was founded in San Francisco in 1946 as a discount grocery store chain selling overstock of limited-time or holiday food items. There are about 280 Grocery Outlet locations in California, accounting for more than half of its total store count.
Though Grocery Outlet has cultivated a dedicated consumer base on TikTok and other social media posts from grocery bargain hunters, it faces fierce competition from other budget grocery chains, including Aldi, which is set to open 180 stores in 2026. It also competes with Trader Joe’s, Walmart and Amazon, which have steadily gained customers.
Last year it was also hurt by the lapse in federal food assistance during the 43-day government shutdown.
In the wake of rising grocery prices and economic anxiety, some low-income customers who would once have shopped at budget grocery chains such as Grocery Outlet are turning to food banks instead. According to Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, 1.2 million people visit its food banks per month.
Grocery Outlet’s net sales rose 4% in the first quarter from a year earlier to $1.17 billion. It recorded a net loss of $180 million for the period.
It said it had closed locations as part of its optimization plan. It also underwent a store refresh program, changing products and is clustering locations to boost profit and customer traffic.
“Our value-oriented product offering continues to resonate with consumers. While we’re encouraged by the progress we’re beginning to see, we’re not satisfied with our current level of performance and are focused on the work we have in front of us,” Potter said on the earnings call.
Grocery Outlet shares have fallen more than 25% over the last 12 months. The Dow Jones industrial average has climbed more than 15% during the same period.
Business
Commentary: Trump greenlights California’s dumbest water project
On July 9, the Trump administration delivered a gift to Cadiz Inc., a politically well-connected firm that has been trying for decades to win approval for a scheme to pump water out of the Mojave Desert and market it to water agencies across the Southland.
The administration approved the company’s application to convert an abandoned 220-mile oil and gas pipeline crossing the desert to carry water instead. Susan Kennedy, the chief executive of Cadiz, called the approval “a pivotal milestone” that would enable the project to move into its construction stage.
Here’s betting that Kennedy’s statement was somewhat premature. The project still faces significant opposition from environmentalists, local Indian tribes and the state of California. It has been declared ready to go — and declared dead, too — so often that it could serve as a character in a zombie movie or streaming series.
I haven’t seen anything to persuade me that there’s not going to be any environmental damage.
— Ileene Anderson, Center for Biological Diversity
Indeed, this is the second time that Trump has greenlighted this project. He did so during his first term, but his decision was overturned during the Biden administration; Trump’s most recent approval overturned that action — but there’s no promising that the next president, whoever that is, won’t overturn this one.
I’ve been covering the Cadiz project for nearly 25 years, starting in 2002; I take credit for helping to put the kibosh on a proposal for the Metropolitan Water District, which supplies water to 13 million Southern California residents, to partner with Cadiz.
In fact, there’s reason to wonder whether Cadiz itself still wants to do the project, even though in the past it described it as its potential corporate lifeblood.
Last year Cadiz reported that nearly 90% of its revenue stemmed from the sale of water filtration equipment manufactured by ATEC, a Hollister firm it acquired in 2022. That segment is its only profitable operation, though the $2.5 million in operating income the unit produced in 2025 was swamped by losses in its other operations — mostly the sale of fruits and vegetables grown on its desert tract — producing an overall loss of $25.6 million. The company has never reported a profit.
Kennedy told me this week that she now sees the water treatment business as “the future of our company — an enormous market opportunity.” She said “demand for filtration is skyrocketing,” with cleansed stormwater “the biggest source of new water supply.” Cadiz has doubled its manufacturing capacity for the equipment, and “we expect to double again.” The company has also signed an agreement to produce hydrogen at its desert site by installing a solar array for power.
Meanwhile, Cadiz is taking steps to hive off the infrastructure it has planned to use for its water project, mostly two unused pipelines, into a special purpose subsidiary. These entities are typically aimed at insulating the parent company from the risks and liabilities of a speculative investment.
In this case, Kennedy told me, the idea is to open the water project more broadly to outside investors.
In practice, that means that the pipelines Cadiz proposes to use to transport desert waters to urban, industrial and agricultural users would fall into the hands of private equity firms, which haven’t been known as a class for their devotion to the public interest. Cadiz would end up with a minority stake in the pipelines, Kennedy says.
Transporting water out of the desert faces so many headwinds that it may make more sense to divest the business and shift over into less controversial enterprises, like filtering poisonous minerals out of reclaimed stormwater and producing hydrogen.
It’s worth reacquainting ourselves with the company’s discreditable history. The Cadiz project was the brainchild of British-born Keith Brackpool, who had a checkered record as an investment promoter. As I wrote in 2002, he pleaded guilty in London in 1983 to criminal charges that included dealing in securities without a license.
Brackpool’s pitch was that by stockpiling water from the Colorado River under the Cadiz sands in years when a surplus was available and delivering it during droughts, the company could assuage the supply crisis confronting Southern California.
I wrote years ago that the project boasted “a sort of shimmering authenticity” — if one didn’t look too closely. Yes, the state faces a long-term water shortage. But the problem is that there’s no surplus water in the Colorado available for California. Cadiz has never made a conclusive case that it could withdraw as much water from its desert tract as it proposed without draining its underground aquifer to a dangerous level or causing its contamination with carcinogenic minerals.
After he started pitching the project in the mid-1990s it began to look as though the company’s principal asset was political juice. Former Rep. Tony Coelho, an important Democratic Party fundraiser, served on the Cadiz board. Cadiz and Brackpool were leading campaign contributors to former Gov. Gray Davis, who was thought to be the source of pressure on the Metropolitan Water District to make a deal with Cadiz. Brackpool hobnobbed with former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who received campaign contributions from him and Cadiz. (Brackpool is no longer associated with Cadiz.)
Kennedy herself had been associated with Cadiz since before she became chief of staff to former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005. Before her appointment, and while she was serving on the state Public Utilities Commission, the firm paid her $120,000 in consulting fees. In 2009, Schwarzenegger endorsed the water scheme as “a path-breaking, new, sustainable groundwater conservation and storage project.”
For years, Cadiz shares traded as a sort of plaything for water investors hoping for a big score over the horizon — what craps players call “betting on the come.” In this case the bet is on the distant prospect that government approvals would eventually make the project real.
For these players, the investments tended to be cheap compared to the potential gains. The largest shareholder of Cadiz, with a 35% stake, is Netherlands-based Heerema International Services, a global industrial infrastructure company. Its holding is worth about $115 million at the current stock price — peanuts for a company that collects revenue of about $5 billion a year.
Then there’s Trump. In March 2017, his Interior Department reversed two Obama administration rulings that had blocked Cadiz’s ability to use a 43-mile pipeline to carry water from the desert to Southern California users. Biden’s Interior Department canceled those rulings. The July 9 action applies to a separate 220-mile pipeline.
In its recent ruling, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management stated that the pipeline conversion would have “no significant impact … on the quality of the human environment” and therefore no environmental impact statement was even needed.
Environmental groups and other plaintiffs who have been fighting the project are “looking at all our options” for legal challenge, says Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, a plaintiff in lawsuits challenging the project. “I haven’t seen anything to persuade me that there’s not going to be any environmental damage,” she says.
When I spoke with Kennedy in January 2024, a few weeks after she took over as Cadiz CEO, she acknowledged that the company’s name had become a “poison pill.” Her plan was to “change the company so people think about it differently.”
At that time, this amounted to refocusing its water supply program on serving users in San Bernardino County rather than urban users throughout Southern California. The idea was to counteract what she called a “political” claim that its goal was to drain the desert to “fill swimming pools in L.A.”
Kennedy didn’t mention ATEC then, but she talks about it today with unalloyed enthusiasm. Indeed, she asserted that the water filtration and hydrogen production businesses together could use as much of the company’s available water as it would pipe miles across the desert.
Kennedy is correct to maintain that government, which once built Hoover Dam, the Central Valley Project and Glen Canyon Dam as crucial pieces of our water infrastructure, “has gotten out of the business.”
But it’s wrong to say that it’s because government can’t afford such projects. Ceding them to private equity is a choice. Given Americans’ dependence on water as a life-giving commodity, do we really want to establish private firms as toll-takers on the water highway, permitted to charge what they wish to maximize their profits? Cadiz may be beating a path to that future, but it may not be a happy journey.
Business
A ‘next generation studio’ for YouTube creators
Hollywood’s fascination with YouTube creators is going to the next level.
Los Angeles-based investment firm Content Partners and media entrepreneur Ed Simpson announced Tuesday that they are launching a new company, Wonderloom Media, that will acquire YouTube-creator led businesses.
Wonderloom’s first acquisition is YouTube true-crime channel Dr. Insanity, which has more than 5 million subscribers and more than 1.3 billion total views.
Content Partners owns or licenses more than 800 films and more than 3,000 hours of television content. The company co-owns the “CSI” franchise.
“This is a kind of next step evolution in the type of IP we will be acquiring,” Alphonse Lordo, a partner at Content Partners, said in an interview.
The effort comes as the film industry continues to struggle to bring more people into movie theaters and has had recent success with the YouTube creator-led films “Obsession” and “Backrooms.” As studios and TV networks have shed jobs over the years, more entertainment workers are applying their expertise at major YouTube creator-led businesses, which have continued to grow their audiences.
YouTube’s audience has shifted from smartphones to TVs, on which many U.S. consumers watch YouTube videos with their families. That in turn has attracted streamers such as Netflix to partner with YouTube creators to bring their content to the same platform that has high-budget television shows and movies.
Simpson, a former TV producer who will be Wonderloom’s chief executive, said Dr. Insanity was the “perfect first acquisition” because it had a loyal audience, proven storytelling and meaningful room to expand. “True crime is an incredibly sticky genre of programming that works just as well as it does on YouTube, as it does on Netflix and linear and cable channels,” he said in an interview.
Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.
Wonderloom, based in L.A., also will assist entrepreneurs who started YouTube channels grow their businesses.
The new company also is eyeing possible acquisitions in food, travel and general entertainment programming, added Simpson, a former chief strategy officer at Wheelhouse, a production firm behind “America’s Sweethearts: Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders.”
“This is about building the next generation studio, so we think of this as the beginnings of Paramount, of Warner Bros., of those great studios,” Simpson said. “We see this space following in that very same pattern right now.”
Other Hollywood companies also are getting into the creator business acquisition space. Last month, Century City-based Creative Artists Agency said it was partnering with Integrated Media Co. to form a $250-million holding company called Compound Creative Holdings that will acquire and operate a portfolio of creator economy businesses.
-
News5 minutes agoArgentina is back in the World Cup final after a thrilling semifinal win over England
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoRemains of murder victim identified as missing Southern California millionaire
-
Detroit, MI2 hours ago4Warn Weather Alert: Wildfire smoke leading to ‘unhealthy’ air quality in Metro Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoSan Francisco fishermen recount harrowing rescue after boat capsizes near Alcatraz
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoTimothée Chalamet ‘Starstruck’ by Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoWives of detained men allege inhumane conditions at federal detention center in Miami
-
Boston, MA3 hours agoDriver charged in Norwood pedestrian crash that left man seriously injured
-
Denver, CO3 hours agoBoys, 12 and 14, arrested in deadly shooting in Denver’s Sunnyside neighborhood