A federal district judge last week paused enforcement of New York’s ban on landlords using a centralized algorithmic platform to set rents. Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction that blocks the state, for now, from policing the core of the law.

The platform, operated by software company RealPage, had faced a three year federal antitrust investigation. Investigators found that the company facilitated something resembling a pricing cartel by using public and proprietary landlord data to help property owners coordinate rent increases, suppress competition, and maximize profits.

The Trump administration eventually settled the federal case, but municipalities moved against the practice. San Francisco outlawed it in 2024, followed by Philadelphia, Berkeley, and Minneapolis, while New York late last year became the first state to prohibit algorithmic rent setting.

RealPage sued after the New York law took effect, arguing that its algorithmic price setting constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment. Caproni found that argument compelling enough to grant immediate relief, even though the law targeted algorithms that strengthen coordination among rental companies.

Caproni was nominated by Barack Obama and confirmed by a Democratic Senate. Democrats had objected to her role overseeing sweeping domestic surveillance operations that were later ruled illegal while she served as general counsel of the FBI.

Her ruling fits a broader pattern examined in a new report from the judicial reform group Demand Justice. The report argues that a decades old legal movement, shaped by conservative advocacy organizations and corporations, worked deliberately to make federal courts a refuge from regulators, lawmakers, and public interest advocates.

“It is not enough to elect a president and Congress committed to democracy, accountability, and equality,” the report states. “We must fix the courts to ensure they are no longer dedicated to obstructing progressive reforms designed to create shared prosperity for all.”

The report traces that campaign to the Powell Memo, written in 1971 by future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, which urged corporations to focus on political power and the courts. It also examines the law and economics movement, lavish trips for federal judges, Leonard Leo, and the conservative Federalist Society’s pipeline of judicial nominees.

Much of the courtroom action involving corporate power has centered on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana. Corporations frequently pursue forum shopping there, using federal judiciary rules that can provide considerable leeway in choosing where to file a complaint.

Judges on the Fifth Circuit helped lay the groundwork for the Supreme Court’s Trump v. Slaughter decision. That ruling stripped independence from federal watchdog agencies that had been tasked for nearly a century with regulating corporate conduct.

Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee and former legal adviser to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, argued in a dissent that presidents could fire members of nearly any independent agency at will. A year later, Trump appointee Don Willett wrote a majority opinion finding that the National Labor Relations Board’s structure was likely unconstitutional and that its leadership could be dismissed at will.

The Supreme Court’s Slaughter opinion in June authorized presidents to fire civil servants without cause and gut dozens of federal agencies. Many of those agencies had been empowered since the New Deal to police corporate abuses associated with the Great Depression.

The Fifth Circuit had previously targeted regulators through other legal theories. In 2022, Reagan appointee Edith Jones argued that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was unconstitutional because it receives financing through the Federal Reserve rather than Congress, although the Supreme Court later rejected that argument in a limited ruling.

Demand Justice also names Judge Reed O’Connor, a former adviser to Sen. John Cornyn and a reliable ally of business interests. A court assignment quirk gives O’Connor most cases filed in the Northern District of Texas.

Courts in Texas and New York have also nullified overtime pay increases, blocked corporate transparency requirements, and approved massive mergers. Judges in the Eastern District of Texas struck down both Obama administration and Biden administration rules that would have raised the salary threshold for overtime exemptions to keep pace with inflation.

Obama appointee Amos Mazzant later issued a nationwide preliminary injunction invalidating the Corporate Transparency Act, which required companies to report beneficial ownership information to combat money laundering. The Supreme Court reversed his ruling, but the Trump administration subsequently issued a rule that effectively invalidated the legislation.

In New York, Clinton appointee Victor Marrero approved the proposed $26 billion Sprint and T-Mobile merger despite concerns from 13 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia attorney general. The combined company later fired thousands of workers, closed about one quarter of its stores, and dramatically raised rates.

Judges Amit Mehta and Leonie Brinkema each ruled that Google held a monopoly in different parts of its business, yet neither broke up the company or imposed a remedy consequential enough to deter its market power. Demand Justice president Josh Orton is urging Democrats to ban forum shopping, pursue Supreme Court reform, and nominate judges willing to side with consumers, workers, and regulators.