A recent hearing in a Northern California federal court has sparked significant concern over how the judiciary is maneuvering through high-profile cases. Scheduled for November 21, 2025, Judge Jeffrey S. White will oversee motions related to a case that has raised eyebrows among critics who view it as part of a worrying trend toward remote hearings and procedural opacity.
The court announced that this hearing will take place via Zoom video conference, which, while commonplace during the COVID-19 pandemic, continues to draw skepticism in 2025. The shift to virtual hearings instead of in-person sessions fuels fears about transparency and accountability in significant legal matters. This session will address multiple motions, including three to strike and two for summary judgment, yet it remains unclear what the underlying case actually involves. The public’s lack of access means observers are left speculating about the merits of the case.
The court has clearly stated that while access links to these remote proceedings will be available on its website, capturing or rebroadcasting the sessions is strictly forbidden. This raises concerns that the judiciary is increasingly insulating itself from public scrutiny. One observer aptly voiced their skepticism through social media, alluding to remote hearings as a “stage-managed charade.”
Statistics reveal a significant uptick in remote court proceedings. By 2023, nearly a quarter of civil matters in federal courts were handled through video formats, a stark increase from pre-pandemic levels. While remote tools served a crucial purpose during public health crises, their continued use raises alarms about how they might undermine the principles of due process and public confidence in the legal system.
Legal accessibility expert and retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Katherine L. Parker emphasizes the drawbacks of remote hearings. “There’s no substitute for the weight that a judge, a jury, or the public gives to testimony and arguments when they happen in person,” she asserts. This sentiment highlights the diminished emotional impact and accountability that can accompany virtual proceedings.
Judge Jeffrey S. White, on the federal bench since 2002, has a reputation for handling cases that affect free speech and corporate regulation. Despite his prominence, the prolonged backlog of cases in his district raises questions about judicial efficiency. The Northern District of California ranks as one of the busiest federal districts in the country, with thousands of cases pending. This heavy workload complicates the judicial process, yet critics argue that shifting vital discussions to virtual arenas only deepens concerns about diminishing transparency.
Calls for greater visibility in court proceedings are not new. Civil rights and press advocacy groups have long advocated for cameras in the courtroom, but concerns about grandstanding have kept them at bay. Ironically, the current system of remote hearings often does more to shroud processes in secrecy than traditional courtroom media coverage ever could.
Details about the parties involved in the current case remain undisclosed, presenting another layer of opacity. The motions suggest intense legal maneuvering, with multiple attempts to strike claims and push for summary judgment, which seeks to sidestep a trial when facts are undisputed. The outcome of this virtual hearing may set the stage for dismissal, further delays, or a trial, but the public is once again left on the sidelines, observing through a screen.
As this hearing approaches, experts express concern over the potential erosion of public trust in democratic institutions. Constitutional law professor Allen Roark cautions against normalizing virtual hearings. He argues that while technology can be a valuable tool in exceptional circumstances, it should not replace the transparency and ritual of in-person justice. With time, growing impatience and skepticism around the effectiveness of remote judicial proceedings may prompt demands for reform.
As the November 21 session unfolds, it will mark over four years since the initial filing of this case. Such delays, compounded by virtual barriers, contribute to a sense that the justice system increasingly favors procedural maneuvers over swifter, tangible resolutions. In a landscape where accountability is essential, the common refrain that “justice delayed is justice denied” seems to resonate louder than ever—especially when viewed through the lens of digital isolation.
"*" indicates required fields
