5:52 PM. Heading out to dinner.
Some thoughts before I go:
- An IAH has already been issued. The question is NOT whether the court SHOULD issue an IAH. The judge already did that.
- The question is whether the IAH should be reversed/quashed.
- If the judge believed, after hearing more evidence, the IAH was issued incorrectly, you’d think she would want to IMMEDIATELY fix that mistake. She could fix that with a one-line decision: “IAH reversed.”
- Since we WANT the IAH to remain in place, the court can take a year to rule on this. That’s fine. The party who wants the existing order reversed is the one who is unhappy with delay.
- There’s a legal rule that says: “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). Based on that rule, whenever courts are asked to enjoin speech, they tend to act VERY quickly, both at the front end (issuing an injunction) and at the back end (correcting an improperly issued injunction).
- At the hearing, the judge was told REPEATEDLY that this IAH was NOT intended to stop anyone from talking about a certain case. That was literally not part of the existing order, so at no time has anyone been prevented from exercising their First Amendment rights. Not even right now.
Having said all that, I’m hopeful a decision will roll out with the normal 2:00 AM drop. If it does, I’ll post it when I see it.