[pkilgore]

This is a temporary injunction not a ruling on the merits. Just like Democratic judges doing this to Trump, it's far more likely to be influenced by politics of the particular Judge or Court of Appeals that any meaningful statement of the law (which it is not).

[invisible]

Also basically every response to this thread regarding this is claiming the courts have decided this, which is just sensational conversation. There very well could be something more to this, but it's more likely that the judge is just airing on "let's dig into this deeper before allowing this change" which makes sense. Nothing has been concluded, the status quo remains.

[charonn0]

1. Judges are not supposed to be partisan 2. I'm not aware of any similar cases being brought under the Trump administration.

[pkilgore]

1. I'm a former Federal litigator. LMAO. And both Parties here. Welcome to America. That's why they filed this in LA + roll up to 11th Cir. Dems file in WA or HI which rolls to the 9th. State Courts are infinitely worse based on the different experience of close friends working in Chicago area v. Northern Indiana.

2. Every temporary injunction issued in the litigation surrounding the wall and Muslim ban was conducted with the Democratic version of this same strategy.

This is the game. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. We will learn the law in time.

[beerandt]

LA is 5th cir.

[pkilgore]

Ooops, thanks, going from memory and I was never doing cases there. And the 5th is the most conservative.

[beerandt]

One requirement for such an injunction is the high likelihood of winning on the merits.

[pkilgore]

Correct. Three other factors need to be balanced as well, although LOS definitely the big one. That doesn't make the PI correct, it doesn't even mean that the court will reach the same decision on the merits in Summary Judgement or after a bench trial, and it definitely doesn't make the PI decision the law.