I noticed that we don’t see Garcia’s face clearly. All the images are from the side.
There are some perspective issues when they are shaking hands.
Finally, they went from, “No, you can’t see him.” With the Senator getting stopped by the military 2 miles from the prison, to sitting and having drinks in a nice location.
This looks faked to me. If not the images themselves, then in the setup.
I had the joy of staying at the Fort last weekend. Originally, the temperatures were supposed to be in the high 40s at night, and the 60s during the day. Perfect Fort weather! That didn’t turn out to be correct (go figure…). It was below freezing overnight Friday night into Saturday morning, and Saturday night into Sunday morning it was 33*F. Saturday was above freezing but very wet and raw. Sunday wasn’t bad, being in the mid 50s and overcast, but dry.
Staying at the Fort always gives me an appreciation for what our ancestors lived through. In one weekend (with albeit “white man fires” going full blast), we went through an entire bin of wood. Some of that was for cooking, because we ran into our usually spring thaw challenges with warming up the fireplaces. Some of it was because my cabin-mates were cold at night. The first was a necessary issue, but the second just left me flabbergasted. Regardless, if we went through that much wood in a weekend, how much wood would the entire fort community have gone through in an average month? It’s no wonder that the entirety of NH was essentially deforested during that period!
Here’s the deal: the Fort is made of logs and flagstones and local stone and brick, in a rather haphazard way. In the 1700s, that fire would never have gone out. Ever. During the night it would have been banked, and during the day they’d have been cooking over it. It’s much easier to keep a fire going than to get one started, and that’s exactly what they would have done. When we leave the Fort in November, and it doesn’t get opened up again until March, it’s been sitting almost five months with no fire. Over that time, the damp and cold get into the stones in a way that would never have happened historically. It takes at least two days of heavy fire burning to bring the entire hearth and wood oven up to heat, so that cooking can be done. This was something our ancestors would never have had to concern themselves with.
No matter how you look at it, when we arrive, it’s going to be COLD at the Fort, and we’re going to have to work hard to change that.
This is what I do when I’m going on an overnight trip to the Fort (or anywhere, quite honestly):
Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court consolidated three cases on appeal from by the administration and scheduled oral arguments for May 15, 2025, at 10 a.m.
24A884, 24A885, and 24A886 are consolidations of 10 different cases, though some of those are duplicates as they came through the circuit courts.
In short, this is the vehicle for the Supreme Court to knock down the raft of inferior courts granting nationwide TROs and preliminary injunctions.
I don’t know if this will extend to final judgment, regardless, this is the case to watch.
I will be up at The Fort tomorrow to take some pictures. I just finished two woodworking mallets. Boy, I’m a poor wood turner. They look ok. I’ve polished one of them and put a sealing coat on it. On the other hand, I can see ever mis-cut and catch as I learn how to do this.
I’m hoping to get at least one of the spinning wheels down and into the cabins. This will give me something to do when I don’t want to be in the wood working shop.
Which means I need to finish the clamps for the clamp to hold my wool combs. I like the way wool spins once it has been combed.
I might even try spinning some carded wool. I’ve not tried that yet.
I have a reed in our big floor loom. We got the loom for cheap, but the reeds were rusted nasty things. I’ve not recovered them yet. I need to make a raddle to allow me to warp the loom. And I have to spin some yarn for the weft.
There are two standard ways that power is supplied to computer type devices. One, they take a 110v AC into a power supply, which then generates 12V and 5V from that for the system. Two, they have a “wall wort” which generates 12V DC, which is then converted as required internally.
More and more of the small devices I’m picking up use the 12V wall wort. The issue? Space for the wall worts.
Wed, I went to plug in a new device. Accidentally unplugged the wrong wall wort, dropped my room switch until I got it plugged back in.
Once I had the correct wall wort removed, I found that I had 2 open outlets but the orientation of the outlets and the orientation of the wall wart don’t fit.
Now I’m dealing with another issue, A new switch that won’t come online.
The SCOTUS Friday Conference was moved to Thursday. Snope was conferenced again.
I really, really, want to see some forward motion on these Second Amendment Cases.
The reason I don’t update you on Ocean State Tactical is that it has been following Snope and I’m too lazy to have another tab open on https://www.supremecourt.gov
I used to drink Coke-a-Cola. I stopped years ago, mostly because of the sugar content. I was converted to coffee.
I do drink tea occasionally. It is not my go-to drink.
In 1773, a bunch of rebels dumped 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. Approximately 92,000 pounds.
For much of my younger years, I thought they were talking about Lipton tea bags. I.e., loose tea in individual small filter bags. There was no way that you could get that much tea into just 342 chests. Then I found out about real loose tea. This was better.
Then I found that what was actually transported were bricks of black tea from the orient. These bricks were solid.
For use at The Fort, we ordered a brick of black tea. It is formed the same way it would have been formed in 1773. Our brick is 2.5 pounds.
The cool thing? It has a shelf life of 50 years. This is prepper paradise!
What do you think will happen when Karmelo Anthony is convicted for murder?
The NPCs will have their marching orders by now. Yesterday it was “Trump is ignoring a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling that he return Garcia”, today it will be “Trump held in contempt of court.”
Since I’m writing this yesterday, we’ll see how good I am at predicting the NPCs.
We need to start on March 15, 2025. The Trump signed an EO designating TDA and MS-13 as terrorist organizations and ordered their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. Five TDA members filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
If the writ is granted by the court, the named plaintiffs must be presented to the court, in person, in corpus (body)
That same day, the court granted a TRO forbidding the removal of the named TDA members. The court claims that the plaintiffs (bad guys) have satisfied the four factors governing the issuance of preliminary relief.
The court didn’t bother to show what those arguments are, nor did the court bother to write an opinion to accompany the order. It is reasonable for the TRO to be granted, the order entered, and then later an opinion entered into the record.
The government immediately filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit.
Later that same day, the 15th, the court decided to extend the TRO to all noncitizens of the in U.S. custody who are subject to removal via the AEA.
The government then appealed the class certification, extending the TRO to all terrorists in U.S. custody.
Lots of back and forth took place, then on the 28th, the court extended the TRO until April 12th. Thus putting a one-month delay on deporting terrorists.
The same day, the government filed an application with the Supreme Court to vacate the orders of the inferior district court.
The first thing to note is that what the district court was a TRO the Supreme Court construed as appealable injunctions. The D.C. Circuit Court has taken all TROs at face value. I.e., not appealable.
The Supreme Court then vacated the TROs on the 7th of April.
As is normal in such situations, the Supreme Court ruled on the narrow question of venue. And that venue is NOT the district court of D.C.
I’m tired of reading this rogue inferior court judge yap. So I’ll wrap it up for y’ll.
The plaintiffs and the court were attempting to stop the Article II executive branch from performing its Constitutional duties and responsibilities.
The court issued a TRO even though the court did not have the jurisdiction to do so nor had they properly analyzed the Winter Factors as applied to this case.
The problem for the government is that judicial orders, in general, must be obeyed. Even if the court issued them erroneously and without proper authority to do so.
The administration learned their lesson. They are no immediately filing appeals when there are tight deadlines. Even an administrative stay gets them out of the contempt trap.
In this case, there was no deadline. The deadline was “now”. Since the government didn’t do what the court told them to do, they can be held in contempt.
Even though the Supreme Court later vacated the self-styled TRO.
This is just lawfare in a different way.
If I’m in enemy territory right now, it’s because I’m under cover of darkness, cloaked in mystery, and mistaken for a friend. I spend at least a few minutes each day, reading the news and whispering, “What the actual fuck…” over and over again. It’s depressing. Yes, I realize most of you have been doing that for ages, but hey, I’m new here.
Yesterday morning, it was the entire mess with El Salvador and Ábrego García being deported.
What are the actual facts? Well, you really have to dig to find them. They’re always behind the “read more” line in any article on a news site. Basically, García came to America illegally in 2011. Now, if that was the case (and it does seem to be correct), if he had no ties to any gangs or illegal operations, and his ONLY illegal act was in coming to America, he could have appealed to Obama for clemency. If that had happened, he would have been here legally by the time Trump came into office this time around. Regardless, he was granted “protection from deportation” (what does that mean? I can’t seem to find any info on it… Chris?) some years ago, and has been living with his wife and kid in Maryland. (BBC)
Kristi Noem has said, “This was just one of those examples of an individual that is a MS-13 gang member, multiple charges and encounters with the individuals here, trafficking in his background, was found with other MS-13 gang members—very dangerous person…” (DHS) So according to the director of DHS, García has multiple charges of being in MS-13, trafficking, and other stuff. I would VERY much like to see the paperwork involved with that, partly to shut up the Left, but also because I continue to have a healthy distrust of all things government and I like to check their information as much as I check anyone else’s. I don’t like it when we’re “told but not shown” stuff. It makes me wonder if they’re hiding things.
Regardless of all of the above, García was transported to El Salvador. At this point, he has been repatriated to his home country, whether that was the right thing to do or not. We no longer have any control over García because he is in the hands of his own government. We don’t get to say, “Hey, García was here illegally and should have been deported, but we want him back so we can run him through the court system to prove it well enough to make some of our citizens happy.” It doesn’t work that way. El Salvador isn’t required to send their citizens to another country, especially another country where they’re going to face possible legal trials. The fact that the president of El Salvador simply locked the dude up as a gang member doesn’t phase me.
Our court system is built around a false or better said, forced, politeness. This means that words have meaning in the context of the Supreme Court that aren’t obvious outside of those that watch The Court.
The Education Industry also does this. When my children were in kindergarten, I had a meeting with their teachers. The teacher said something to the effect of, “Your son is not sharing with his friends.”
I was surprised at this, to say the least. Then I found out that the school had changed the definition of “friend”.
It seems they had noticed that children treat their friends differently and often times better than those that are not friends. So the school changed the definition of “friend” to mean any classmate or student the child interacts with.
The court is filled with this sort of rhetoric, using polite words of friends when it is more likely that somebody wants to rip their lying opponent’s throat out.
This is a polite way of saying that the state has made the claim that Garcia is a member of MS-13 but that the Supreme Court doesn’t accept it as proven.
Fact: An Immigration Judge (Article II Judge), found that Garcia was a member of MS-13.
This is also polite court speak for said but not proven.
Fact: Garcia is charged with a crime, he is an illegal alien. He has a removal order put in place under Biden.
This is Court speak for, “You were wrong. We are returning it to you to fix.” The word “requires” is an order. It is telling the inferior court judge that he MUST correct their error.
“Clarification” means that the inferior court said something wrong.
With normal people, this is the equivalent of “I believe you are mistaken” when you want to say, “What you said is wrong. And the entire room is dumber for having had to listen to it.”
“…unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority” is court talk for something like. “Either you meant what you said which is outside your authority, OR you meant something else. You must have meant something else. Make it clear you didn’t mean what you said.”
This is as strong of language that I’ve read in a SCOTUS opinion.
Sometimes, I will be in a discussion with somebody, and they will say something insulting or rude to me. I will respond, “Did you intend to call me ignorant/a lier/stupid/racist?” If I’m saying this, I’m pretty darn sure they said it intentionally. This gives them an opportunity to walk it back without me forcing the issue.
The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order was clear. The judge was ordering the US government to put Garcia in front of the Judge by midnight. And that judge didn’t care what the government had to do to accomplish his order.
“…with due regard”, “deference”, and “conduct of foreign affairs.” are all code. “Due regard” is SCOTUS telling the inferior courts that the Executive branch is co-equal with the legislative and judicial branch. “Deference” means that the executive branch is responsible for the executive branch, not the courts.
The last part, “conduct of foreign affairs,” means that this is a limited ruling. If it has to do with foreign affairs, the executive branch is responsible, not the judicial or legislative branches. This also means that if it is not “foreign affairs”, the court might have the authority to step in, after giving due regard and deference.
There are many situations where the setting demands a level of decorum, of the trappings of respect. In oral arguments before the Supreme Court, it is proper to refer to the opposing council as “my friend.” To call congress critters “honorable”.
Unfortunately, there are those in the business of selling panic know that most people will not understand forced respect, instead they will latch on to the thing that is panic worthy, or which is what they want to hear.
The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated
sounds like it is a loss for the administration. It is not. The stay issued by the Chief Justice did what it was supposed to do. It protected the administration from charges of contempt.
The differences between effectuate and facilitate is lost on the masses. The number of people who believe that the administration was ordered to return Garcia to the United States is nearly unbelievable.
They want to believe that Trump is breaking the law.
As Allyson says, “read the bill”. Unfortunately, I believe that the plain text of Supreme Court opinions is beyond the comprehension of most people suffering from TDS.
This randomly showed up on my Google Radio the other day, and it made me stop and listen. The music strikes me as a cross between a Russian folk song and something out of a circus performance. But the lyrics… Oh, the lyrics.
My first impression of this was that it was a rallying cry to the Left. Jobless on the streets and all that. But when you listen to (or read) the lyrics, it’s something else entirely. I found out this song was originally written in Yiddish in the 1930s by a Jewish Krakow resident named Mordechai Gebirtig. He wrote it as a song of resistance against the rising tide of antisemitism in Poland and Germany. You can read more about Mr. Gebirtig here, and I highly recommend you do. I had no idea who he was until this song arrived in my play list. I’m glad it did.
Mr. Gebirtig lived through a time where he was treated horribly, persecuted and prosecuted without reason. Here was a man who wanted to work, who had meaningful work, who had family to support, and he was put out of Krakow because of his religious beliefs.
The Left talks a lot about how the Right is like the Germans and Trump is our Hitler. But when you actually read things like the above history of Mr. Gebirtig, you see that it’s the other way around. And it’s rather frightening.
For whatever reason, every party I ever went to in the 1980s included at least one version of this dip, served in a bread bowl. I’m not sure why we stopped making it, because it’s iconic comfort food, tasty and with a healthy kick to it from the spinach. Therefore, I shall share it with you, dear readers. Because it’s yummy.
Ingredients:
Combine all ingredients in a bowl and mix. Chill the spinach dip for about 2 hours.
In a good size round of bread with a chewy crust (in other words, one that won’t fall apart being used as a bowl), cut a circle out of the top. Using a knife or your fingers, pull out bits of bread to make the round into a bowl. Add the chilled spinach dip to your bread bowl.
Serve this classic spinach dip with the bread that you pulled out of your bread bowl, and a stack of fresh vegetables as well. Make a double batch, because you will need to refill the bowl before the night is over.
Notes:
You can make this vegetarian or vegan! Replace the sour cream with 16 oz of cashew yogurt. Replace the mayo with Nayonaise or another vegan mayo. That’s all you need to do! Another alternative is to use a cashew cream cheese in place of the mayo, for a thicker dip. Be prepared to thin it out with a bit of oat milk if it’s too thick.
While scrolling through X, looking for something to write about, I stumbled on a posting regarding Trump’s annual physical and its results.
/Trump’s 2025 Annual Physical Results
The post and almost all the comments are of the “It’s a fake!” or “They’re lying!”
His temperature is normal. That can’t be because it is just an average. They lied.
He scored 30 out of 30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. This is a lie, everybody has seen he is cognitively impaired.
We know his height and weight are BS.
His resting heart beat is too good. It must be a lie.
He was tested on the 11th of April, but they didn’t release the results until the 13th. This proves it is a lie. They wanted time to fabricate the results.
Or my favorite, they noted the scar on his right ear but not the scars from multiple failed hair transplants. Since the assassination attempt was fake, this proves the medical report is fake as well.
Trump got a clean bill of health, since he isn’t showing any issues, it must be wrong.
These people are sick in the head. They just want him, and us, dead.
P.S. My favorite bit of TDS this week was a bunch of people looking for information about the kid that attempted to assassinate Trump. Since the monster was killed and the attempt was faked, this is another indicator that Trump faked the assassination attempt.
In the best of all worlds, the states would look at the Constitution, look at their laws, and gut their regulations until every last regulation aligned with our Constitution.
This is not the best of all worlds. There are too many politicians who are agenda-driven. There are too many courts that are agenda-driven. The agenda is more important than the Constitution or The People.
This means that judges who have an agenda will look for ways to manipulate case law or the lack of case law.
Does the Second Amendment apply to the states? We don’t think so. The Supreme Court never said that it does, so our opinion is the correct opinion.
Because our legal system is built on common law, the law must apply to everyone equally. Once a decision has been made based on a particular line of reasoning, other, similar decisions should have the same result.
In rogue courts, this will ratchet in only one direction. If the case law favors The People but at odds with the court’s agenda, the case law won’t apply. If the case law favors the court’s agenda, then it will apply.
One of the lawyers I follow or use to follow puts it as, “Congress writes the bill, the President makes it law, the Courts decide what it means.”
It doesn’t matter what the intentions of Congress and the Executive branch might be when drafting and creating law, it only matters how the Courts interpret the law.
There are 600+ Federal District Court Judges. Each of them has an opinion about what the law means. Some of them attempt to respect, to adhere to the Constitution, some of them do not. Regardless, because there are so many, there will be differences in opinion.
To bring the inferior courts into agreement, each district court reports to a circuit court. The circuit courts will accept cases for review and publish opinions, which the inferior district courts must follow.
This brings the district courts into alignment within a circuit. Unfortunately, the inferior circuit courts are often agenda-driven. This means that the circuits will split on agenda differences. The Fifth Circuit court is more likely to find for The People, for The Constitution. The Ninth Circuit is more likely to find for the state, against The People.
When the circuits split, or if the matter is of importance to the Supreme Court, they might agree to hear a case. When the Supreme Court issues their Opinion, the inferior courts should follow instructions the Supreme Court issues.
A court case starts by a person filing a suit. In a criminal case, this is the state, as represented by the prosecutor. The case is filed against someone. Remember that corporations are legally people. I’m going to ignore the criminal side, as I’m just not interested in that side, at this time.
The person opening the suit is the plaintiff. The other party is the defendant. The plaintiff will state a harm and request relief from the harm. The court must be able to grant that relief.
Let’s consider a common situation, a divorced man has been ordered to pay child support. He works to better himself and finds himself promoted or working in a better paying job. His ex-wife can file suit to have the child support increased.
She will allege that he is making more money, part of which should be going to his children.
There is alleged harm, he is shorting his children. The court can remedy the situation by ordering him to pay more in child support. The court grants her the relief she was seeking
Turn it around, a divorced man goes to pick up his children. His ex-wife refuses to hand them over for visitation. It is a Friday, the courts are closed, he goes home without his children.
On Monday, he attempts to file a suit. He alleges that his ex-wife denied him his visitation rights. He asks that he get the weekend with his children.
There is no way for the court to give that weekend back. It is gone. It is not a case for the courts. There is no relief the court can grant to fix the harm that was done.
There must be standing and an active conflict for the courts to act.
The suit makes allegations. If the allegations are about the law, the plaintiffs can request summary judgment. This means that the case can be decided by the courts without requiring facts/evidence be provided.
If there is a need for evidence to be collected, that requires fact finding.
Consider these two suits, 1) The plaintiffs file suit asking for a summary judgment finding that requiring permits to carry a firearm is unconstitutional. 2) The plaintiffs file suite asking for an injunction forcing the sheriff’s department to issue permits to carry in a timely fashion.
In the first case, there is no evidence or facts to be found. It is a matter of law. Per case law, when a constitutional challenge is made, the plaintiff needs to show that the proposed conduct implicates the plain text of The Constitution. Once the plaintiffs have shown that implication, the burden shifts to the state to prove the modern regulation is inline with this Nation’s historical tradition of regulation.
Note that this language is similar to what we saw in Bruen. That is because Bruen didn’t invent anything new. This has been the standard for at least a hundred years.
In the second case, the plaintiffs will need to prove that the sheriff’s department is not issuing permits in a timely fashion.
The steps of the case:
Until the case has reached step 11, Summary Judgment granted or denied, the case is in an interlocutory state.
When a case is filed, “bad things” could be happening, which needs to be stopped immediately.
A person gets notice they are to be evicted the following day. They request a TRO to stop the eviction.
An alien is detained and will be deported. Their lawyer files a suit to stop the deportation and requests a TRO to stop the alien from being removed from the local jurisdiction.
A TRO lasts until a preliminary injunction is issued or denied. They are supposed to only a short period of time. If it is an urgent matter, then the preliminary injunction should be briefed and heard in a short period of time. A week, maybe two should be the limit of a TRO.
IN DECIDING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONunder Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts in the Ninth Circuit look to the following factors:
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009)
To determine whether to issue a TRO, the courts in the Ninth Circuit apply the same analysis used to evaluate a motion for preliminary injunction. McCarthy v. Servis One, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32622, at *9 –10 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2017).
A party seeking a preliminary injunction in the Ninth Circuit must meet one of two variants of the same standard. First, a party can show that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits, that he or she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his or her favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Alliance For The Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2017). Alternatively, under the sliding scale variant of the standard, if a plaintiff can only show that there are serious questions going to the merits —a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits —then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff ’s favor, and the other two factors are satisfied. Alliance For The Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).
These two alternatives represent extremes of a single continuum rather than two separate tests. Immigrant Assistant Project Los Angeles County Fed ’n of Labor v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 873 (9th Cir. 2002).
We see one of the issues with rogue courts, such as the Ninth. The Supreme Court has stated that TROs, Preliminary Injunctions, and stays are extraordinary actions which require the Winter Factors be used. Here, the Ninth has said that an inferior, district court, can use the Winter Factors, or use a sliding scale.
When using a sliding scale, the inferior court is supposed to use the “balance of hardships”. Balance of hardships is not part of the Winter Factors. This gives courts in the Ninth Circuit to decide that anything is a hardship, which allows them to grant TROs, Preliminary Injunctions, and Stays when the party requesting them hasn’t shown a likelihood of success on the merits.
For a preliminary injunction, the court needs the plaintiffs and defendants to file briefs to demonstrate why the preliminary injunction should be granted or denied. The plaintiff files their motion for a preliminary injunction. The defendant files their response. The plaintiff then files a reply to the response.
If the court requires more, they will request more. If defendants feel they need to reply to the reply, they ask permission of the court to do so.
The court then schedules a hearing. The parties can meet independently of the hearing. They can file a joint motion on what they think the preliminary injunction should be. The plaintiffs can file a motion suggesting what the wording of the preliminary injunction should be. The defendants might file a “we don’t think it should be granted, but if it is, this is what the wording should be.”
After the hearing, the court will issue their order granting, denying or granting in part and denying in part the requested preliminary injunction.
The process of getting a preliminary injunction is adversarial. The process of getting a TRO is not.
If a preliminary injunction is granted, that injunction will be in place until final judgment is issued.
After the preliminary injunction is granted (or not), the parties start filing their arguments, briefs, motions. Amicus Curiae can file briefs as well.
During this process, the parties will meet, discuss what can and cannot be agreed to between them. Anytime an agreement is reached between the parties, a motion if filed with the court to get the court’s approval.
There will be status reports and hearings to make sure everybody is on track to have everything filed on time.
Finally, there will be arguments made in court.
After the arguments have been made, the court will make their decision and issue their final judgment.
When the final judgment is given, the case is no longer in an interlocutory state, at the district level.
Normally, a TRO cannot be appealed. The thinking is that since it lasts such a short time, by the time the superior court has heard the arguments, the TRO should have expired.
Since a TRO is supposed to maintain the status quo, there should be nothing in a TRO that cannot be undone, with a proper application of money.
If a party appeals a TRO or the denial of a TRO, the superior court should apply the Winter Factors and there must be an extraordinary reason for the intervention.
To have the Supreme Court hear an appeal regarding a TRO is almost unheard of. To have them action a TRO is even rarer.
The normal method that is used to stop a TRO with a deadline is to grant an administrative stay long enough for the deadline to pass. This gives the defendant time to respond without facing contempt charges.
Again, TROs normal cannot be appealed.
A Preliminary Injunction can be appealed. Since a Preliminary Injunction lasts for the duration of the case, a “bad” Preliminary Injunction can cause immense damage.
It is also the case that a Preliminary Injunction should not normally grant the relief sought in final judgment. If what you are asking for in final judgment is for the homeowner to stop hoarding rainwater and the preliminary injunction requires the rainwater to be distributed to all their neighbors, there is no way to make the homeowner whole when the dry season hits.
The Preliminary Injunction might require the homeowner to retain that rainwater, not using it nor releasing it.
The Preliminary Injunction can be appealed. From the District Court it is appealed to the Circuit Court. From there it could be appealed to the Supreme Court.
After the final judgment is issued, the case at the District Level is done. The case is no longer in an interlocutory state.
Findings of fact cannot be appealed. Thus, if the District Court finds that the sheriff is taking 18 months on average to issue a permit to carry, the sheriff can appeal that finding of fact.
They can appeal the procedure and rules used to make the determination. For example, the sheriff submitted documentation showing that 10,000 permits were granted within 30 days, but the district court refused to accept the documentation because the staples were in the wrong place.
There must be an active controversy for a court to intervene. If there is no active controversy, the case is moot.
A criminal on death row is appealing his sentence. He dies of a heart attack. There is no longer a controversy, the case is moot.
There are exceptions for this. The most common was abortion cases. Since a pregnancy lasts 9 months and most court cases take years, there is no possibility for an abortion case to be heard at the appeals level before the woman is no longer pregnant.
The rogue inferior courts have been throwing out Second Amendment challenges from 18 year-olds because they age out. To resolve this, their needs to be an organization involved representing all members under 21. As the individual plaintiffs age out, the organization adds new 18-year-old plaintiffs.
The superior court can grant stays and injunctions. These are temporary in nature. They are designed to change the state of preliminary injunctions or final judgments.
If the superior court finds that the inferior court got it wrong, they can vacate the lower court’s judgment. Normally, the case is then remanded (returned) to the inferior court for them to correct whatever it was they did wrong.
In our example, the inferior district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the homeowner from using the collected rainwater or from wasting it. The appeals court can stay that injunction, allowing the homeowner to use the rainwater while waiting for the final judgment.
In the same way, if the inferior district court did not issue an injunction, the plaintiffs (not the homeowner) could appeal and the appeals court could issue an injunction, stopping the homeowner from using or destroying the rainwater.
The Supreme Court produces thousands of words per day per justice. They hear oral arguments. They read 10s of thousands of words in filings in cases.
Unlike myself, they need to read everything. I normally skip the boring stuff or the state’s BS. It isn’t worth my time.
This means they hear about 70 cases per term. This is in addition to making a few dozen to a few hundred orders per week.
This last Monday, they issued orders in 78 cases.
Anything the Supreme Court does or says becomes precedent. If they were to grant cert to cases in an interlocutory state, the number of requests for cert would skyrocket. They already get in excess of 7000 petitions for cert every term.
It is a big deal, therefore, when the Supreme Court grants cert on a case that is in an interlocutory state.
They don’t normally hear requests for stays or injunctions from cases in an interlocutory state.
The fact that they have made statements in a few Second Amendment challenges that were at the TRO or Preliminary Injunction state is astonishing.
The Second Amendment community needs to fight to a final judgment as quickly as possible. If we ask for a TRO, and it isn’t granted, that was a waste of our resources. If it is granted, the state will appeal to the circuit courts, where it will be stayed. The circuit court can then delay the case for many months.
The Supreme Court will not step in, while a case is just starting
If we ask for a preliminary injunction, either we are denied, in which case it just cost us resources and time, or we are granted the injunction which will be appealed, and the entire case is again delayed.
We want the case completed at the district level as quickly as possible. If we win, the state will appeal, but now we are on the way to the Supreme Court. If we lose, we appeal, we are still on our way to the Supreme Court.