“Likely to do X” is not “have done X”, or even “will do X”.
If it was, we wouldn’t need the preliminary in preliminary injunction, the standards for which balance the likelihood of success on the merits with the kinds of impacts the action sougjt to enjoin would have on the situation of the parties, so a greater and/or more difficult to undo impact requires a lesser probability of success to be sufficiently likely to warrant an injunction.
Kinda. It depends on whether you mean the legal definition of admissible evidence or just "stuff"
It is mostly meta evidence - statements about what evidence will show at trial. Which assumes it's valid and admissible and actually shows that and ....
In this case, this isn't on a whim but I wouldn't say it's on the evidence either - especially given the consistent misquotes.
They were not particularly diplomatic on the evidence part: "Additionally, the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claims fails to properly apply state-action doctrine and ignores the voluminous evidence presented by Defendants that contradicts Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations."
"Temporary restraining orders" (TROs) are extremely preliminary. This is not a TRO.
This is a "preliminary injunction" (PI). A PI is a different phase of the case. Granting a PI is extremely an significant and consequential action by the judge. Think about it this way-- if the judge is right and conservative voices were suppressed-- the PI has the potential to change the political landscape in which the legal challenge occurs. So, in addition to the judge signaling that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in getting permanent relief, in the meantime the judge also is tipping the playing field in their favor to undo the irremediable harms that are the subject of the litigation.
PI's exist to maintain status quo. It's not that interesting. What evidence standards are used also varies a lot (some courts only use admissible evidence, some do not).
In this case, it will likely be overturned on standing grounds, for example, fairly quickly, if not other grounds.
It has tons of problems everywhere. On standing, for example, it clearly ignores binding supreme court precedent - the court decided, with basically no discussion of why, the states have parens patriae standing to sue on behalf of their citizens in cases like this, but they literally do not, and haven't forever (going back >100 years).
I expect this will be raised almost instantly in the request for a stay.
Actually, i just found the stay request, they already filed it:
"This Court concluded that Plaintiff States have standing under a parens patriae theory
despite the Supreme Court’s clear statement that “[a] State does not have standing as parens patriae
to bring an action against the Federal Government.” Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico,
458 U.S. 592 (1982); Haaland v. Brackeen, 143 S. Ct. 1609, 1640 (2023)."
"The Court also held that all Plaintiffs have standing despite their failure to present any evidence of ongoing or imminent
harm. See Attala Cnty., Miss. Branch of NAACP v. Evans, 37 F.4th 1038, 1042 (5th Cir. 2022).
Additionally, the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First
Amendment claims fails to properly apply state-action doctrine and ignores the voluminous evidence presented by Defendants that contradicts Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations."
I don't think this injunction is gonna stand very long.
I can't stand these arguments. It's like "well maybe we did violate the first amendment but you can't sue us for it." As far as I'm concerned the government should have a special status that basically anyone can sue them for violating the constitution as that damages everyone. We need to make it easier to hold the government to account, not harder.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...