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.
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:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...
"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.