Matthew J. Kacsmaryk (photo, left; bio here), 45, is a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas.
A Catholic (as are all 6 of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices), he graduated from a private, non-Catholic Bible college that was all-white until 1962 and prohibits same-sex dating by its employees (details here).
His law degree is from the University of Texas, and like most Trump judicial appointees he’s a member of the Federalist Society, a group for conservative lawyers that has figured prominently in the rightwing takeover of the U.S. judiciary. Before becoming a federal judge, he worked for “a Christian right law firm in Texas,” according to Vox (here).
His Wikipedia biography (linked above) shows a more diversified background, including a 5-year stint as an assistant federal prosecutor.
Kacsmaryk has been a federal judge since June 2019. Democrats fought his confirmation because of his anti-LGBQT and anti-abortion views. On the bench, he’s become a go-to judge for those promoting reactionary causes.
He made a splash by striking down a Biden administration policy on asylum seekers; that ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court. He’s attacked Biden administration policies seeking to protect LGBQT workers from discrimination.
Vox asserts “Kacsmaryk’s record on the bench indicates he is willing to use his public office to advance reactionary causes, regardless of what the law actually says.” Made against a judge, that’s a damning accusation.
And Vox is now worried about another case: A group of anti-vaxxers and spreaders of Covid-19 disinformation are suing a group of media companies they claim boycotted their anti-vaccine propaganda and promotion of quack Covid remedies. This should get them laughed out of court, but judge-shopping dropped the case in Kacsmaryk’s lap.
To make a long story short, the media defendants (which include Washington Post, BBC, and Reuters) worked together to “keep a lid” on “disinformation that could harm public health.” Under existing precedents, that’s not a violation of American antitrust law, because it’s for a legitimate social or political purpose, not unfair competition for economic advantage.
“Given the legal authorities weighing against the … plaintiffs” they should lose, Vox says, adding “the biggest reason to fear that they might prevail is that the case is assigned to Matthew Kacsmaryk.”
As Vox reminds us, Covid-19 has killed over a million Americans (to be exact, 1,106,511 as of January 25, 2023, according to Johns Hopkins, here). The plaintiffs suing these news organizations are people who oppose masks and vaccines, and sell horse pills to the gullible. They don’t deserve the time of day in a courtroom, and only a biased judge with a political agenda would give it to them.
The worry is that Kacsmaryk might be that judge.