Thursday’s Missouri redistricting ruling used boilerplate to freeze the district court’s TRO. That didn’t prevent confusion over what the Court had “stayed.”
Yes; it means even a stay from #SCOTUS in the case currently pending wouldn’t put the USPS rule into effect; the government would separately need a stay of this injunction, too. It really seems increasingly likely that the Court will deny the stay in Judge Talwani’s case—not just because it *should,* but because I have to think it would’ve ruled by now if it was *granting* relief.
Professor. Vladeck, I have a question I feel is of importance in regard to the disposition of these cases. What is the scope of the injunction in the case brought by the states ? Did Talwani issue a blanket injunction against implementation of the rule this time around ? Or once again. did she merely enjoin the enforcement of the rule against those plaintiff states that asked for it ??
I'm sure your readers will appreciate the the consequences implicated by doing that. The Postal Service will then be free to go about its work, and those states that have not sued it, but rather intervened on its side in this case will be bound to comply with it. That is 26 states. That just happen to have Republican controlled legislatures.
In effect, these states are "asking for it". Which poses the question Judge Talwani asked of them at the hearing : "I can not understand why": "Why do you feel the states you represent need to be compelled to do something they are free to do voluntarily ?".
Indeed. Why ? The Appeals Court decision is less than clear on this point. It says in its introduction the Postal Service is enjoined from implementing the rule. Then later it says "The injunction runs in favor of the Appellees". Eg., Plaintiffs.
What a horrible thought. That the Postal Service and Homeland Security might wreak havoc with the voting only in those Republican controlled states that chose to play ball with them. Might the ghost of Bush v. Gore raise its ugly head once again to save us from this predicament ??
Thanks so much for clarifying the possible effect of the 8th Circuit hearing later this week. I've been trying to figure this out much of this past weekend.
Question for those more skilled in federal civil procedure than I (yes, that means everyone!):
A party wins a TRO, but that party was found not to be likely to prevail on the merits on one of the arguments presented in favor of the TRO. Is the District Court's finding of "not likely to prevail" an appealable final order? If not, what in the world is the 8th Circuit doing with its expedited hearing this week? It seems very odd that the 8th Circuit last week rejected the motion to stay filed by the Intervenor-Defendants based at least in part on jurisdiction, but this week they agree to hear an expedited appeal of the same order based on even more tenuous jurisdictional grounds. Is someone in St. Louis "auditioning"?
I think the Supreme Court’s order did something important here even without resolving the ultimate merits: it removed the immediate uncertainty over which map should govern while the litigation continues.
I also think the Court took the right procedural approach. Rather than effectively deciding the underlying dispute through emergency relief, it stayed the district court’s order and gave the Eighth Circuit the opportunity to do its job through the normal appellate process.
That matters to me. Emergency applications are increasingly capable of producing consequences that look very much like final decisions, especially in election cases. Here, the Court provided the clarity Missouri needed for the election while still preserving the role of the court of appeals.
Whether one ultimately agrees with the 2022 map or the 2025 map is a different question. Procedurally, though, I think this was the cleaner approach: stabilize the situation first, then let the appellate courts address the legal issues in the proper order.
Insomniac here: is this a new development in the mail-in ballots slugfest? It's easy to get lost in the reads...uh, I mean weeds.
https://substack.com/@chrisgeidner/note/c-336666733?r=e1sbw
Yes; it means even a stay from #SCOTUS in the case currently pending wouldn’t put the USPS rule into effect; the government would separately need a stay of this injunction, too. It really seems increasingly likely that the Court will deny the stay in Judge Talwani’s case—not just because it *should,* but because I have to think it would’ve ruled by now if it was *granting* relief.
Professor. Vladeck, I have a question I feel is of importance in regard to the disposition of these cases. What is the scope of the injunction in the case brought by the states ? Did Talwani issue a blanket injunction against implementation of the rule this time around ? Or once again. did she merely enjoin the enforcement of the rule against those plaintiff states that asked for it ??
I'm sure your readers will appreciate the the consequences implicated by doing that. The Postal Service will then be free to go about its work, and those states that have not sued it, but rather intervened on its side in this case will be bound to comply with it. That is 26 states. That just happen to have Republican controlled legislatures.
In effect, these states are "asking for it". Which poses the question Judge Talwani asked of them at the hearing : "I can not understand why": "Why do you feel the states you represent need to be compelled to do something they are free to do voluntarily ?".
Indeed. Why ? The Appeals Court decision is less than clear on this point. It says in its introduction the Postal Service is enjoined from implementing the rule. Then later it says "The injunction runs in favor of the Appellees". Eg., Plaintiffs.
What a horrible thought. That the Postal Service and Homeland Security might wreak havoc with the voting only in those Republican controlled states that chose to play ball with them. Might the ghost of Bush v. Gore raise its ugly head once again to save us from this predicament ??
Regarding Supreme Justice seniority, our laws clearly have defects. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Indeed, our current president keeps finding them, and if he doesn't find one, he uses a bulldozer. Same result. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Thanks so much for clarifying the possible effect of the 8th Circuit hearing later this week. I've been trying to figure this out much of this past weekend.
Question for those more skilled in federal civil procedure than I (yes, that means everyone!):
A party wins a TRO, but that party was found not to be likely to prevail on the merits on one of the arguments presented in favor of the TRO. Is the District Court's finding of "not likely to prevail" an appealable final order? If not, what in the world is the 8th Circuit doing with its expedited hearing this week? It seems very odd that the 8th Circuit last week rejected the motion to stay filed by the Intervenor-Defendants based at least in part on jurisdiction, but this week they agree to hear an expedited appeal of the same order based on even more tenuous jurisdictional grounds. Is someone in St. Louis "auditioning"?
Thanks for explaining everything so clearly so we who are not educated in legalese can understand what is happening and how to accept it or notl
Factoid: Stays were precursors to corsets … a time period SCOTUS seems to inhabit increasingly.
I think the Supreme Court’s order did something important here even without resolving the ultimate merits: it removed the immediate uncertainty over which map should govern while the litigation continues.
I also think the Court took the right procedural approach. Rather than effectively deciding the underlying dispute through emergency relief, it stayed the district court’s order and gave the Eighth Circuit the opportunity to do its job through the normal appellate process.
That matters to me. Emergency applications are increasingly capable of producing consequences that look very much like final decisions, especially in election cases. Here, the Court provided the clarity Missouri needed for the election while still preserving the role of the court of appeals.
Whether one ultimately agrees with the 2022 map or the 2025 map is a different question. Procedurally, though, I think this was the cleaner approach: stabilize the situation first, then let the appellate courts address the legal issues in the proper order.