3 ms·

For the non-lawyers: as the article indicates (but doesn’t really explain), this is a ruling on a request for temporary relief (called a “preliminary injunction

by mdeck_ 6y ago

For the non-lawyers: as the article indicates (but doesn’t really explain), this is a ruling on a request for temporary relief (called a “preliminary injunction”). This is not a final judgment. It can (and presumably will) also be subject to appeal. Nothing remotely final about this. The judge has simply said: “CA, you can go ahead and enforce your law for now.” Now, this does also mean the judge would quite likely ULTIMATELY rule in CA’s favor. But it is not a guarantee. And, as I said, then there’s appellate and Supreme Court review. For reference, the 4-element test/standard for a preliminary injunction generally accepted in US courts is set out here: “[G]enerally a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must satisfy a four-factor test: (1) that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims; (2) that he or she is likely to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities between the parties support an injunction; and (4) the injunction is in the public interest.” https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/woman-advocate/practice/2018/preliminary-injuction-relief/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/wom...

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Now, this does also mean the judge would quite likely ULTIMATELY rule in CA’s favor In this specific case it does, as the judge specifically seems to have ruled that the ISPs are u likely to succeed on the merits, but in general denial of a preliminary injunction does not. Granting an injunction requires (loosely) both probability of success on the merits and irreparable harm in the interim without the injunction, so you can't automatically read a denial as “likely to lose on the merits”, though you can read one being granted as the opposite more safely (but not entirely because the exact rules vary and it's something's more of a balancing of those two factors than an strict logical “and”, where more certainty and severity of harm allows an injunction with less probability of success on merits.

by mdeck_ 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Now, this does also mean the judge would quite likely ULTIMATELY rule in CA’s favor In this specific case it does, as the judge specifically seems to have ruled that the ISPs are u likely to succeed on the merits, but in general denial of a preliminary injunction does not. Granting an injunction requires (loosely) both probability of success on the merits and irreparable harm in the interim without the injunction, so you can't automatically read a denial as “likely to lose on the merits”, though you can read one being granted as the opposite more safely (but not entirely because the exact rules vary and it's something's more of a balancing of those two factors than an strict logical “and”, where more certainty and severity of harm allows an injunction with less probability of success on merits.