There wasn’t really a legal basis for striking this down, because the plaintiffs did not actually suffer damage. Same for the discrimination case where the pla

There wasn’t really a legal basis for striking this down, because the plaintiffs did not actually suffer damage. Same for the discrimination case where the plaintiffs had neither suffered damage, nor prior restraint, nor were actually engaged in the line of business in which they claimed to be. The court is now accepting purely hypothetical cases when it’s convenient for them - this was someone who might start a web business and might suffer adverse action. The action that might be punished hasn’t even occurred yet, let alone any governmental response, nor is their even any bona fide movement towards the action that might be restrained, let alone any indication the government might restrain it. It’s extremely damaging to our legal fabric to have this double-standard applied across the system. This is calvinball territory, the court is changing the rules of the game for different participants. Different people get an entirely different process based on which group you fall into, and the process difference is so drastic it effectively determines the outcome of the case.