So I read the TRO from Judge Robart
The ruling is interesting to read as a document. The court notes that the question before it is whether or not to stop implementation of the executive order (EO) until a full ruling can be made. The court then notes that it has jurisdiction, then lists the four things that must be demonstrated by the plaintiffs, namely, that their argument against the plaintiff "is likely to succeed on the merits" of the complaint, that the plaintiff can establish "irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief" from the court, "that the balance of equities tips in [plaintiff's] favor," and that "an injunction is in the public interest." The court also notes that there is an alternative test for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order ("the Cottrell test"
.
The court then states that the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that the four above conditions have been met, as well as the alternative test.
Harm to the states of Minnesota and Washington would be "in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel," the ruling states. "These harms are significant and ongoing," the ruling states. The ruling concludes with a statement that the court orders all involved with the enforcement of the EO to stop enforcing the EO in Sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e). There are also specific injunctions upon "proceeding with any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities." In the conclusion, the court notes that its job is to make sure that laws and executive decrees "comport with our country's laws, and more importantly, our Constitution."
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3446398-Robart-TRO.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
He clearly doesn't understand anything about the Constitution
Thanks for posting
