4 ms·

You might want to find out why the order was immediately vacated, but you, or at least I, will not do so by reading the article: > One day after granting the T

by JadeNB 9mo ago

You might want to find out why the order was immediately vacated, but you, or at least I, will not do so by reading the article: > One day after granting the TRO, the same judge ruled that it should not remain in effect and vacated the order. > “The Court finds, sua sponte, that the [TRO obtained by the State of Texas against Samsung] should be set aside,” the judge wrote in the order. "ruled that it should not remain in effect" links to https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26462588-20260106-order-vacating-signed-tro/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26462588-20260106-or..., but my desire to understand what's going on does not yet extend to reading the order.

tadfisher 9mo ago
"sua sponte" means "of the court's own volition", there is no reason given in the order to vacate.
- ronsor 9mo ago
  The obvious reason is that Samsung's check finally cleared.
  - mindslight 9mo ago
    It's the routine fascist shakedown playbook at this point: 1. Make some big noise and token action about an issue that has been festering for decades, while their own party has been the primary opposition to any kind of substantive lasting reform (eg US GDPR) 2. Rally the useful idiots to rally around the cause of widely-desired reform, backfitting all the ideals behind the issue as if fascists have any appreciation for lofty ideals 3. Let the target company marinate and roast under the pressure until they capitulate and send a bribe and/or other tribute 4. Drop the token action after the attention spans of their useful idiots have expired and they've moved on to the next spectacle 5. If the issue comes to a head again, the useful idiots blame the "libuhruls" rather than having an ounce of self-awareness to realize their own leaders sandbagged and sold them out
  - BLKNSLVR 9mo ago
    My suspicion is that Ken Paxton thought Samsung was Chinese, and soon after the court action was submitted found out they were actually South Korean (or at least 'not Chinese').
- SoftTalker 9mo ago
  In such cases, is it normal for there to be no reason or elaboration on why the order was vacated?
  - treetalker 9mo ago
    Fairly typical in state courts, where trial-level judges are generally left to do what they please and often give little if any rationale. In federal courts, judges generally explain themselves (sometimes they are required to) en route to doing what they please.
observationist 9mo ago
It's likely that they set some conditions and said "if you meet these conditions, we'll vacate the order" - probably some sort of compliance with Texas regulations governing what can and can't and should and shouldn't be tracked, and Samsung technically complied? Hard to find the details.
DannyBee 9mo ago
This is the TRO order: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/TRO_0.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima... There is no written decision on the vacating other than what you already linked. Reading the TRO, a lot jumps out at me. To pick a single thing: "The Court HOLDS that because the State seeks injunctive relief pursuant to an authorized statute, which supersedes the common law, it need not prove immediate and irreparable injury, nor does the Court have to balance the equities when the State litigates in the public interest." Certainly the DTPA (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=BC&chapter=BC.17&artSec= https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=BC&chapter=BC...) authorizes temporary restraining orders, but if you read it carefully, there is nothing in it that explicitly overrides or replaces the typical TRO standards. A quick search doesn't show me that texas courts have interpreted it to do so anyway, but maybe they have - i'm not familiar enough with texas law to say for sure. There are other issues with the TRO

by JadeNB 9mo ago

tadfisher 9mo ago

"sua sponte" means "of the court's own volition", there is no reason given in the order to vacate.

ronsor 9mo ago
The obvious reason is that Samsung's check finally cleared.
- mindslight 9mo ago
  It's the routine fascist shakedown playbook at this point: 1. Make some big noise and token action about an issue that has been festering for decades, while their own party has been the primary opposition to any kind of substantive lasting reform (eg US GDPR) 2. Rally the useful idiots to rally around the cause of widely-desired reform, backfitting all the ideals behind the issue as if fascists have any appreciation for lofty ideals 3. Let the target company marinate and roast under the pressure until they capitulate and send a bribe and/or other tribute 4. Drop the token action after the attention spans of their useful idiots have expired and they've moved on to the next spectacle 5. If the issue comes to a head again, the useful idiots blame the "libuhruls" rather than having an ounce of self-awareness to realize their own leaders sandbagged and sold them out
- BLKNSLVR 9mo ago
  My suspicion is that Ken Paxton thought Samsung was Chinese, and soon after the court action was submitted found out they were actually South Korean (or at least 'not Chinese').
SoftTalker 9mo ago
In such cases, is it normal for there to be no reason or elaboration on why the order was vacated?
- treetalker 9mo ago
  Fairly typical in state courts, where trial-level judges are generally left to do what they please and often give little if any rationale. In federal courts, judges generally explain themselves (sometimes they are required to) en route to doing what they please.

observationist 9mo ago

It's likely that they set some conditions and said "if you meet these conditions, we'll vacate the order" - probably some sort of compliance with Texas regulations governing what can and can't and should and shouldn't be tracked, and Samsung technically complied? Hard to find the details.

DannyBee 9mo ago

This is the TRO order: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/TRO_0.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima... There is no written decision on the vacating other than what you already linked. Reading the TRO, a lot jumps out at me. To pick a single thing: "The Court HOLDS that because the State seeks injunctive relief pursuant to an authorized statute, which supersedes the common law, it need not prove immediate and irreparable injury, nor does the Court have to balance the equities when the State litigates in the public interest." Certainly the DTPA (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=BC&chapter=BC.17&artSec= https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=BC&chapter=BC...) authorizes temporary restraining orders, but if you read it carefully, there is nothing in it that explicitly overrides or replaces the typical TRO standards. A quick search doesn't show me that texas courts have interpreted it to do so anyway, but maybe they have - i'm not familiar enough with texas law to say for sure. There are other issues with the TRO