5 ms·

This is a decision granting plaintiffs' motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Yes, federal judges can issue TROs against federal agencies which, in this cas

This is a decision granting plaintiffs' motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Yes, federal judges can issue TROs against federal agencies which, in this case, are DHS and US Marshals Service. Precedent cited in the decision is Winter v. Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) [A SCOTUS decision.]. The court's analysis considered the following: (1) [plaintiff] is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) [plaintiff] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in [plaintiff]'s favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. (It's slightly confusing, but the court is treating this motion for TRO the same way as a motion for preliminary injunction.) In the end, the court found for the plaintiffs and thus it issued a TRO for 14 days, unless extended (or overturned). Of course, the federal agencies may choose to ignore a federal judge's order. But the federal judiciary doesn't take lightly to that transgression, and it would be a career limiting move for any federal agent, from cabinet-level officials down to foot soldiers, to ignore the judge's order.

aspenmayer 6y ago
It was one thing when the Mayor of Portland himself got tear gassed. If you have judges coming down from the bench to enforce a ruling, you’ll either hear it a mile away, or when it’s too late; either way, the judges always get their way. That is the law. Judges embody the rule of law in America, in these rare moments of checks and balances on a national scale, and the rest of the time too.
salawat 6y ago
Thanks, I thought I understood it, I was just hoping someone else would also reach the same conclusions. I delve into these types of thing only as a pass time, so I wasn't sure if I was reading it correctly. It just seems so bizarre. I never imagined the Judiciary would back or merit an order that essentially infringes on the Executive's prerogative to operate. As I understood it, the Judiciary could rmdismiss cases brought by the Executive as a check, but not outright tell the Executive how to operate via restraining order. That seems a little too "legislating from the bench" for what my detectors are tuned for right now. What a strange time.

aspenmayer 6y ago

It was one thing when the Mayor of Portland himself got tear gassed. If you have judges coming down from the bench to enforce a ruling, you’ll either hear it a mile away, or when it’s too late; either way, the judges always get their way. That is the law. Judges embody the rule of law in America, in these rare moments of checks and balances on a national scale, and the rest of the time too.

salawat 6y ago

Thanks, I thought I understood it, I was just hoping someone else would also reach the same conclusions. I delve into these types of thing only as a pass time, so I wasn't sure if I was reading it correctly. It just seems so bizarre. I never imagined the Judiciary would back or merit an order that essentially infringes on the Executive's prerogative to operate. As I understood it, the Judiciary could rmdismiss cases brought by the Executive as a check, but not outright tell the Executive how to operate via restraining order. That seems a little too "legislating from the bench" for what my detectors are tuned for right now. What a strange time.