[Micanthus]

A couple reasons:

1) Recency bias, you probably remember more of these cases from Texas right now because that's the subject of this article.

2) The district and appelate courts in the US vary widely in their judicial ideologies, and usually align closely with their local political leanings. In today's political landscape with a democratic administration, it's unsurprising that courts in conservative districts frequently rule against federal agencies. Notably this judge was appointed by Trump, and is citing recent rulings and legal theory from the current radically conservative Supreme Court. Judges in liberal areas are still under some obligation to take precedent into account, so the case may have gone the same way even with a liberal judge, now that the Chevron Doctrine is more or less dead due to the Supreme Court. But liberal judges still often diverge from the legal theory conservative supreme court justices are using today.

3) Judge shopping, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping#United_States ) the case was intentionally filed in a district that is known for conservative judges that are friendly to corporations, were appointed by Trump, and align closely to the supreme court's legal ideology. The Northern District of Texas were this case was decided is a common choice for such shopping, especially because they explicitly ignore policy guidelines (that are sadly nonbinding) to prevent judge shopping.

[tallanvor]

Let's be honest, though, for pro-business rulings #3 is the main reason. Businesses know that filing in that District is guaranteed to get them a judge that almost always sides with them.