[camdat]

The requirements for an injunction are much lower than an actual ruling.

The party must just show that they have a possibility of winning the case and that granting temporary relief will not cause additional harm to the plaintiff.

To use that as proof that the defendant will win is ridiculous.

[Karunamon]

a possibility of winning the case

The actual term used is "likely to prevail".

Injunctions are not handed out willy-nilly, and the actual wording in the injunction should give you pause:

"The officials have engaged in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government"

Nobody said anything about "proof that the defendant will win". I said said that several judges have found evidence of unconstitutional pressure being applied. Please do not misrepresent a plain statement of fact.

[camdat]

Thankfully, we just heard back from 5th Circut Appeals that the injunction was likely a significant overstep and was overturned.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214...

[Karunamon]

Incorrect. The Fifth Circuit upheld the injunction. They found, specifically, that the officials from the FBI, White House, and CDC likely violated the First Amendment.

[camdat]

>But, we emphasize the limited reach of our decision today. We do not uphold the injunction against all the officials named in the complain

[Karunamon]

>As explained in Part IV above, the district court erred in finding that the NIAID Officials, CISA Officials, and State Department Officials likely violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. So, we exclude those parties from the injunction. Accordingly, the term “Defendants” as used in this modified provision is defined to mean only the following entities and officials included in the original injunction:

[Followed up by a page and 1/4 of people and agencies who the injunction still applies to]

In no way is it honest to describe this as "overturned".