#Temporary injunction

[alawwww]

How to Apply for a Temporary Injunction to Prevent Further Harm in the United States

A temporary injunction provides urgent relief by stopping harmful actions before a full trial can resolve the underlying dispute. If you face a situation where ongoing activities threaten irreparable damage, you can apply for this court order. Below is a comprehensive guide to help you navigate the process, complete with practical steps, legal standards, and recent case examples from…

[seemabhatnagar]

"High Court Upholds Injunction: Disputed Land Construction Halted Amid Ancestral Property Claims"

If the property is found to be Joint Hindu Family Property, any sale of a specific piece of land without partition is impermissible.

The case involves a dispute over land that was purchased by the petitioners.

The petitioners filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the temporary injunction orders passed by the 9th Civil Judge Junior Division and the order was affirmed by the 4th District Judge, Rewa. The injunction restrained the petitioners from raising construction on the land they purchased.

The respondents had filed a suit in 2012 seeking a declaration of title, partition, and injunction, along with challenging the validity of Wills and Sale Deeds related to the disputed property.

Ahmad Khan & Others v. Bhaskar D Datt & Others

Misc. Pet. 4060/2023

Before HC of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur

Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G S Ahluwaia J

Legal Issue

Whether the temporary injunction issued by the lower courts was justified, particularly when the sale deeds were executed during a period when no injunction was in force, and whether Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to these sale deeds executed during the pendency of the suit.

Argument of the parties

Petitioners submission: Argued that since the sale deeds were executed during a time when no temporary injunction was in force, they should not be restrained from constructing on the land. They also contended that the purchasers (petitioners) were bona fide buyers, and the injunction causes irreparable loss.

Respondents Submission: Claimed that the disputed property is ancestral and has not been partitioned, so the sale deeds executed by defendants were invalid. They argued that the land could not be alienated without partition, and the injunction was necessary to preserve the status quo.

Court's Observation

The Court observed that under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, any sale deed executed during the pendency of a suit does not become void but is subject to the final outcome of the suit. The Court also noted that if the property is found to be Joint Hindu Family Property, any sale of a specific piece of land without partition is not permissible. Therefore, the lower courts' temporary injunction was appropriate to prevent potential irreparable harm.

Order:

The petition was dismissed by the High Court, the Court didn't found any jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the trial and appellate courts. The temporary injunction order restraining the petitioners from raising construction was upheld.

Seema Bhatnagar

[william-r-melich]

Shame on the Appeals Court - 03/20/2024

Late yesterday, the 5th Circuit Federal Appeals Court blocked Texas with a temporary injunction from enforcing their SB4 law which would allow Texas to arrest and deport migrants who enter their state illegally. Earlier yesterday, the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) issued an emergency appeal to remove a previous stay that was blocking SB4, a huge win for Texas. I didn't know that a Supreme Court appeal could be blocked by a lower Federal Court of Appeals, and they did so in the same day, crazy. So, Texas went from celebrating a victory for border security, to going back to being angrily frustrated at not being able to stop the stampede of illegal crossings. The 5ht circuit is entertaining arguments today on whether to stay the injunction, pending the outcome of an appeal at the SCOTUS.

“A majority of the panel has concluded that the administrative stay entered by a motions panel on March 2, 2024, should be lifted,” the unsigned order by the court reads. Yesterday, on March 19th, circuit judge Andrew Oldman disagreed: “I would leave that stay in place pending tomorrow’s oral argument on the question.” That was just hours after the SCOTUS had rejected an emergency request from the Biden jackasses to look at the administrative stay directed by the 5th Circuit's prior panel. The DOJ's (Department of Justice) stance on the law is that it violates the Constitution's Supremacy Clause which declares that states do not have the right to enforce immigration laws.

As per usual with emergency appeals, the Supreme Court did not give a reason for issuing their order. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amey Coney Barrett issued aligning opinions. Barrett wrote on regarding actions of the high court: “never reviewed the decision of a court of appeals to enter—or not enter—an administrative stay.” She continued, that it is “unwise to invite emergency litigation in this Court about whether a court of appeals abused its discretion at this preliminary step.”

Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson had dissenting opinions. Sotomayor said the order “invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement.” She went on to write that the law “upends the federal-state balance of power that has existed for over a century, in which the National Government has had exclusive authority over entry and removal of noncitizens.” - I say, bullstit! States have always had the legal right and shared responsibility for protecting their sovereignty. Yesterday, the Mexican government said that it will not accept any illegal migrants coming back to them no matter what. They said that anyone deported who is not a Mexican citizen does not have to be accepted by them.

All governor Abbott wants to do is to enforce the laws to keep his state safe and secure, and the Biden commies are doing everything they can to impede that. It's disgusting! Will this nightmare ever end? I sure hope so.

[seo-changbinnies]

i have a post queued for tomorrow i promise i'm still a cc

[neopals]

NOT THE MODHAUS UPDATE CALLING THEM FORMER LOONA MEMBERS

[leemarkies]

i love how my mind is live laugh love da rn but that isn't stopping me from coming up with the most insane swtor thoughts

[luckystarchild]

US District Court Judge John Coughenour is a goddamn hero.

He issued a nationwide injunction today protecting birthright citizenship.

“It has become ever more apparent that to our president the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” Coughenour said Thursday. “In this courtroom, and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.”

[dsasaxxx]

"The US Treasury Department has issued more than 100 billion yuan in welfare benefits to unidentified people."

Russian media: Musk said that the US Treasury Department pays more than $100 billion in welfare benefits to unidentified people each year

According to Tass, US entrepreneur and Government Efficiency (DOGE) Minister Elon Musk posted on X on Monday that the Treasury pays more than $100 billion in benefits to unidentified individuals, which is "absolutely ridiculous and must be addressed immediately."

Elon Musk, Secretary of Government Efficiency (Visual China)

Musk said, " Yesterday, I learned that more than $100 billion in annual benefits are now given to individuals who do not have social security numbers (SSN) or even temporary ID cards. If true, it's extremely suspicious.”

"When I asked the people at the Treasury if they could roughly estimate what the clearly fraudulent portion was in this amount, the consensus was about half, or $50 billion a year or $1 billion a week!!"Mr.Musk added.

Musk said, " It's ridiculous. It has to be addressed immediately.”

U. S. President Donald Trump allowed Musk to access the government's computer system, violating constitutional protection and "failing to faithfully enforce the law of Congress," 19 attorney general, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, said in a lawsuit on Monday. Federal Judge Paul A Engelmeeyer issued A preliminary injunction early Tuesday, temporarily preventing Musk's efficiency department from accessing sensitive materials from the U. S. Treasury Department, saying there was a risk of "irreparable damage."According to a new report by CNN (CNN), the White House condemned the ruling as "judicial overreach" and called the judge who made the ruling "radical."

[uplift-daily]

As of February 14, 2025:

Yesterday, a federal judge blocked enforcement of Trump's executive order targeting gender affirming care for transgender people up to the age of 19. While this initial injunction is temporary, U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson has stated he expects the transgender teens and organizations supporting them to prevail on all claims.

Here are five other executive orders that federal judges have blocked:

U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan blocked the federal funding freeze only minutes before it was scheduled to take effect. When the administration slyly rescinded the memo but kept the federal funding freeze in place, U.S. District Judge John McConnell ruled that the administration had disobeyed a court order and ordered the administration to comply.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas banned Elon Musk’s DOGE team from accessing Treasury Department records. Today, judges will also evaluate if this ban will extend to potentially sensitive data at U.S. health, consumer protection and labor agencies.

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole initially blocked the federal employee buyout plan. Although O'Toole eventually allowed the plan to go through, less than 4% of eligible employees took the deal, undercutting projections that 5-10% of federal employees would take the deal. Additional challenges are still ongoing.

So far, four judges have blocked Trump's birthright citizenship executive order.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, blocked plans to put 2,200 USAID employees on leave and require overseas USAID workers to return to the United States within 30 days. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali extended this block to reinstate funding to USAID contracts and other awards.

The fight isn’t over, but these victories show that we are not powerless. Advocates, lawyers, and everyday people standing up for what’s right are making a difference.

Keep calling your representatives, organize, and hold onto hope!

[mariacallous]

Federal employees are seeking a temporary restraining order as part of a class action lawsuit accusing a group of Elon Musk’s associates of allegedly operating an illegally connected server from the fifth floor of the US Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) headquarters in Washington, DC.

An attorney representing two federal workers—Jane Does 1 and 2—filed a motion this morning arguing that the server’s continued operation not only violates federal law but is potentially exposing vast quantities of government staffers’ personal information to hostile foreign adversaries through unencrypted email.

A copy of the motion, filed in the DC District Court by National Security Counselors, a Washington-area public-interest law firm, was obtained by WIRED exclusively in advance. WIRED previously reported that Musk had installed several lackeys in OPM’s top offices, including individuals with ties to xAI, Neuralink, and other companies he owns.

The initial lawsuit, filed on January 27, cites reports that Musk’s associates illegally connected a server to a government network for the purposes of harvesting information, including the names and email accounts of federal employees. The server was installed on the agency’s premises, the complaint alleges, without OPM—the government’s human resources department—conducting a mandatory privacy impact assessment required under federal law.

Under the 2002 E-Government Act, agencies are required to perform privacy assessments prior to making “substantial changes to existing information technology” when handling information “in identifiable form.” Notably, prior to the installation of the server, OPM did not have the technical capability to email the entire federal workforce from a single email account.

“[A]t some point after 20 January 2025, OPM allowed unknown individuals to simply bypass its existing systems and security protocols,” Tuesday’s motion claims, “for the stated purpose of being able to communicate directly with those individuals without involving other agencies. In short, the sole purpose of these new systems was expediency.”

OPM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

If the motion is granted, OPM would be forced to disconnect the server until the assessment is done. As a consequence, the Trump administration’s plans to drastically reduce the size of the federal workforce would likely face delays. The email account linked to the server—HR@opm.gov—is currently being used to gather information from federal workers accepting buyouts under the admin’s “deferred resignation program,” which is set to expire on February 6.

“Under the law, a temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy,” notes National Security Counselors’ executive director, Kel McClanahan. “But this is an extraordinary situation.”

Before issuing a restraining order, courts apply what’s known as the “balance of equities” doctrine, weighing the burdens and costs on both parties. In this case, however, McClanahan argues that the injunction would inflict “no hardship” on the government whatsoever. February 6 is an “arbitrary deadline,” he says, and the administration could simply continue to implement the resignation program “through preexisting channels.”

“We can't wait for the normal course of litigation when all that information is just sitting there in some system nobody knows about with who knows what protections,” McClanahan says. “In a normal case, we might be able to at least count on the inspector general to do something, but Trump fired her, so all bets are off.”

The motion further questions whether OPM violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits federal agencies from taking actions “not in accordance with the law.” Under the APA, courts may “compel agency action”—such as a private assessment—when it is “unlawfully withheld.”

Employees at various agencies were reportedly notified last month to be on the lookout for messages originating from the HR@opm.gov account. McClanahan’s complaint points to a January 23 email from acting Homeland Security secretary Benjamine Huffman instructing DHS employees that the HR@opm.gov account “can be considered trusted.” In the following days, emails were blasted out twice across the executive branch instructing federal workers to reply “Yes” in both cases.

The same account was later used to transmit the “Fork in the Road” missive promoting the Trump administration’s legally dubious “deferred resignation program,” which claims to offer federal workers the opportunity to quit but continue receiving paychecks through September. Workers who wished to participate in the program were instructed to reply to the email with “Resign.”

As WIRED has reported, even the new HR chief of DOGE, Musk’s task force, was unable to answer basic questions about the offer.

The legal authority underlying the program is unclear, and federal employee union leaders are warning workers not to blindly assume they will actually get paid. In a floor speech last week, Senator Tim Kaine advised workers not to be fooled: “There’s no budget line item to pay people who are not showing up for work.” Patty Murray, ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, similarly warned Monday: “There is no funding allocated to agencies to pay staff for this offer.”

McClanahan’s lawsuit highlights the government’s response to the OPM hack of 2015, which compromised personnel records on more than 22 million people, including some who’d undergone background checks to obtain security clearances. A congressional report authored by House Republicans following the breach pinned the incident on a “breakdown in communications” between OPM’s chief information officer and its inspector general: “The future effectiveness of the agency’s information technology and security efforts,” it says, “will depend on a strong relationship between these two entities moving forward.”

OPM’s inspector general, Krista Boyd, was fired by President Donald Trump in the midst of the “Friday night purge” on January 24—one day after the first HR@opm.gov email was sent.

“We are witnessing an unprecedented exfiltration and seizure of the most sensitive kinds of information by unelected, unvetted people with no experience, responsibility, or right to it,” says Sean Vitka, policy director at the Demand Progress Education Fund, which is supporting the action. “Millions of Americans and the collective interests of the United States desperately need emergency intervention from the courts. The constitutional crisis is already here.”

[collapsedsquid]

The university system sued United Auto Workers Local 4811 on Tuesday even though both sides have competing unfair practice labor claims pending before the California Public Employment Relations Board, which declined twice to issue an emergency injunction.

Alright graduate students and postdocs, disregard the injunction now is the time to take over the university with a students & researcher's soviet

[robertreich]

The Truth About Trumponomics

Trump and Republicans want to wreck your bank account. Here are 5 things you need to know about Trumponomics.

1.Trump wants tax cuts for the rich, at your expense.

Trump’s tax cuts for the rich and big corporations added about $1.7 trillion to the national debt, with few benefits trickling down to the middle class — in fact, it raised taxes for more than 10 million American families.

Now Trump and Republicans want to make the tax cuts for the rich permanent, blowing up the debt even further. And then they’ll use that debt to justify this:

2. Trump would cut Social Security and Medicare — programs you’ve been paying into!

In every year of his presidency, Trump submitted a budget that tried to cut Social Security and Medicare. And he knows that’s the only way he can even begin to pay for extending his tax cuts for the rich.

3. Trump and his allies are pro-junk fee.

When the Biden administration issued a rule capping credit card late fees at $8, Sen. Tim Scott, a Trump surrogate, tried to overturn it in the Senate. And then a Trump-appointed judge issued a temporary injunction that blocked the rule from taking effect. Eliminating that rule would cost American families an estimated $10 billion a year.

And when the Biden administration required airlines to issue automatic refunds for canceled flights, Trump’s allies in Congress fought to block that too.

When Trump was in office, his administration fought against efforts to rein in airline junk fees.

Corporations nickel and diming us like this makes inflation worse. If Trump gets back in the White House, buckle up for more junk fees.

4. Trump would send health care costs soaring.

Republicans have committed to repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, which would strip Medicare of the ability to negotiate drug prices, and let Big Pharma send the price of insulin and other life-saving medicines back through the roof.

And Trump is still fixated on repealing Obamacare, with no plan to replace it.

TRUMP: Obamacare is a disaster. We’re gonna do something about it.

That would strip coverage from tens of millions of Americans, drive up premiums, and let insurers charge more or deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions.

5, If you’ve got student debt, you’re out of luck with Trump.

In contrast to President Biden, who’s canceled more than $160 billion of student debt so far, Trump is against student debt relief. In his first term, he tried to eliminate the popular Public Service Loan Forgiveness program for people like teachers and nurses, and he’s called the idea of debt relief “unfair.”

What’s unfair, is how student debt hurts not just the roughly 40 million Americans burdened by it, but the entire economy, since Americans with debt have less money to spend, are less likely to start a business, less likely to buy a home, and more likely to rely on government assistance.

The MAGA agenda would make nearly every aspect of your life more expensive, while making the richest Americans even richer.

Teddy Roosevelt’s economic plan was called the Square Deal. Franklin Roosevelt’s was the New Deal.

What Trump is offering is simply a Raw Deal.

[dostoyevsky-official]

The Courts Can’t Stop the Trump-Musk Coup

Many of Trump’s orders are illegal, and unconstitutional, and brazenly so. Most good-faith lawyers can see that, but “good faith” does not describe the current state of the federal judiciary. Trump and MAGA have captured and corrupted the courts: They have seeded the lower courts with federal judges more loyal to Trump and his white-supremacist movement than they are to the law. They have stacked the Supreme Court with justices hostile to civil rights and equality. This doesn’t mean that cases brought by the ACLU, AFL-CIO, or Democratic state attorneys general are destined to fail. Their cases are righteous (and, legally speaking, right) and must be brought. Some might even succeed.

But the courts will not “save” us. They will not be the backstop protecting us from the Trump-Musk takeover, and any person who tells you otherwise, especially if that person is an elected Democrat in Congress, is selling you an excuse for inaction and complacency. Trump and Musk are barbarians at the gate; calling in the lawyers to tell them they’re trespassing isn’t going to halt their advance. Courts are not known for their harm prevention—they’re best used when trying to hold someone accountable for the harm they already caused.

The most obvious reason for this is that the courts move slowly. They are designed to move slowly. [...] If we’re very lucky, in a year or two we’ll get final rulings on whether Trump is allowed to do the bad things he started doing two weeks ago.

[...] The quickest tools the courts have at their disposal is the “temporary restraining order” (aka “TRO”) and the “nationwide injunction.” You’ve likely heard these terms before. These are temporary orders issued by a court that purportedly prevent the implementation of new laws or policies pending a full trial (or hearing) and ruling on the “merits” of a legal challenge. Often, these temporary orders themselves are appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which potentially delays the timeliness of these emergency actions), with the administration trying to lift the temporary stops so it can implement its policies while the courts sort out whether the policy is legal.

[...] In theory, these orders should be effective stopgaps. The problem is that the court has no enforcement mechanism. It has no army, no police force, no power to impose its will. Instead, the executive—in this case the president—is supposed to enforce the court’s orders. But what if Trump doesn’t? There is little reason to believe that Trump will enforce an adverse court ruling against himself. There is no reason to believe he’ll enforce one against Musk. He’s clearly not interested in enforcing the court order (and, you know, the entire piece of legislation passed by Congress and signed by his predecessor) against TikTok.

[...] Consider the constitutional crisis unfolding right now. Musk has reportedly seized access to the private information of every US taxpayer, and the payroll information of every government employee. He has no right to this information but… he has it. Who’s going to undo that damage? A court order released Thursday afternoon purportedly limited Musk’s access to Treasury files to two “special employees” with “read-only” access to the data. Musk has reportedly agreed to follow those rules. Who is going to make sure he does? Who is going to lead the crack team of forensic digital investigators to make sure that Musk is in compliance with this or any future court order? My guess is “no one.” Musk currently has a stranglehold on the government, and enforcement of his limitations is going to run on the “trust me, bro” system.

[...]There are any number of Trump orders that this Supreme Court is going to rubber-stamp, all while promoting the conservatives’ “unitary executive theory” that grants the president powers more commonly associated with those of a king. As we’ve already seen with the court’s decision to grant Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, Roberts and his co-conspirators have pre-decided that the best way to handle Trump is to ride it out, generally give him what he wants, and accrue as much power for themselves as possible. Power that they’ll be happy to redeploy once he’s gone and they are again dealing with an executive who will faithfully enforce their orders, like literally any sad-sack Democrat who ever manages to win election again.

I’m not saying that the courts do not matter. As I said, some good decisions will squeak through. [...] But the courts will not save us. Even a friendly court is not designed to save democracy from a democratically elected president, and most courts are not our friends to begin with.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Torri Lonergan at MMFA:

When President Donald Trump announced his intention to end birthright citizenship, right-wing media figures immediately began spreading misinformation to make the move appear more palatable. Right-wing media amplified Trump’s false claim that the U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship, inaccurately suggested that birthright citizenship makes it easy for undocumented parents to become citizens, and obscured the fact that Trump’s executive order applies to the children of some who are in the country legally.

Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship

Since 1898, the 14th Amendment has been interpreted as guaranteeing birthright citizenship, meaning that all children born in the U.S. are American citizens — regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” [NPR, 1/23/25; BBC, 2/5/25]

On the first day of Trump’s return to the presidency, he signed an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. If the order is implemented, children born in the U.S. would only automatically become citizens if their parents are citizens or lawful permanent residents. The children of undocumented immigrants and the children of people here legally on temporary work, student, or tourism visas would no longer be granted birthright citizenship. [White House, 1/20/25; NPR, 1/20/25; NBC News, 1/22/25]

Trump’s executive order is already facing at least five lawsuits from 22 states and has been temporarily blocked by multiple federal judges. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour called the order “blatantly unconstitutional” and issued a temporary restraining order to stop it from taking effect. U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman later issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against Trump's executive order, saying it “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment." [NPR, 1/21/25; AP News, 1/23/25; ABC News, 2/5/25]

MYTH: No other countries have birthright citizenship

Right-wing media figures seized on Trump’s false claim that the U.S. is the only country that recognizes birthright citizenship, repeatedly amplifying it without fact-checking.

[...]

FACT: The U.S. is not the only country with birthright citizenship

Dozens of countries, including Canada and many Central and South American countries, recognize unrestricted birthright citizenship. Many other countries grant birthright citizenship with restrictions — for example, by granting birthright citizenship only to the children of legal residents. [Library of Congress, 11/2018; NPR, 1/23/25; Time, 1/23/25]

Right-wing media are launching a war on birthright citizenship with baseless lies, such as falsely claiming that only the US offers birthright citizenship.