Over the past year, the Supreme Court has taken a far more active role in reviewing cases reflecting fringe arguments supported by federal district court judges and appellate circuits. The Western and Northern Districts of Texas have become the destination of choice for "judge-shopping" to receive the benefits of far-right conservative judicial ideology. But when attorneys challenging the ban on gender-affirming care used a similar approach to dismiss a case before a hostile right-wing conservative federal judge, the Alabama district court subjected them to a two-year secret investigation for purported "judge-shopping". Chris Geidner, a noted Supreme Court reporter and author of the newsletter "Law Dork" joins SideBar to discuss how federal "judge-shopping" is allegedly being used to manipulate outcomes and how the current Supreme Court is responding.