So this is a preliminary injunction... what exactly does that mean and what are the steps from here? At this point is it highly likely that it will be upheld and become permanent, or is there a pretty good chance the further litigation will change the ruling? Or is there no way to tell from here?
A preliminary injunction is considered very strong. So it's not that "nothing is final here", it's actually almost pretty much final unless something comes out of left field.
This ruling isn't on the actual case. The ruling is about the injunction being upheld while the case is tried.
Funnily enough the judge has a similar concern:
>> I write separately to express my concern that “in some cases, parties appeal orders granting or denying motions for preliminary injunctions in order to ascertain the views of the appellate court on the merits of the litigation.”
I agree that we need to be careful not to read too much into this, but in most scraping cases I know about, preliminary injunctions are granted as a matter of routine.
The fact that this judge refrained from doing so may signal that the judiciary is finally willing to bring some nuance and rationality to their interpretation of extremely broad statutes like the CFAA. It's a positive signal, even if ultimate victory remains unlikely.
This is a temporary injunction not a ruling on the merits. Just like Democratic judges doing this to Trump, it's far more likely to be influenced by politics of the particular Judge or Court of Appeals that any meaningful statement of the law (which it is not).
Headline is factually inaccurate; its a preliminary injunction which includes consideration of likelihood of success on the merits, not a ruling on the merits.
Those are both decisions regarding preliminary injunctions, so your claim that they were found "not illegal" is erroneous. It's explained pretty clearly in the short paragraphs you linked to.
It removes the injunction because they determined there wasn't standing, not because they affirmed the Executive's actions as legal. Those are two different things.
As much as I hate the decision, I can understand their reasoning for a preliminary injunction.
If they find that the program is Constitutional, then there would have been damage from dismantling the program. If they find that it is not, little incremental damage is done over what has happened already in the last several years.
My guess is that they expect this to be appealed no matter what they decide, and so are covering their bases.
reply