Thread by @AkivaMCohen

The Judge is now patiently trying to get Kleinhandler to understand the difference between saying "I think MLB is wrong about GA voting law" and "I think that means it was bad faith"

Holy shit. Never say "wait a minute, your Honor" to a judge

Kleinhandler just said that MLB was free to cancel the ASG entirely, just not able to move it to a different state

Note: Kleinhandler just agreed that his clients had no damages from the thing he said was wrong

The judge now patiently explaining to Kleinhandler the difference between "moving an All Star Game" and "discrimination on the basis of race"

The Judge: You're not alleging discrimination based on race
Klownhandler: Yes I am
Judge: You haven't even alleged JCN has a single minority member!
Klown: OK, that's true

Judge now explaining that you can't "hinder" anyone from exercising a constitutional right by advocating for a change in the law that Klownhandler's clients think is bad

Judge: You agree that if I reject your state actor you lose, right?
Klown: No, because the state will be intimidated into passing a bad law to accommodate MLB
Judge: What evidence do you have that might happen?
Klown: The threat is sufficient.

Um ... no

Judge: What factual allegations have you given me to let me infer that the Georgia legislature is intimidated?

Klownhandler: <Dead silence, then> You can assume it. I don't need to prove the state is actually going to react. Just being called Jim Crow is enough

Klownhandler: Private parties can't threaten states with punitive action because they don't like the law

Judge: You can't possibly think that.

Judge gives an example that is literally the same: No contract, a manufacturer plans to move to the state and then says "no, new law doesn't meet our values"

Klownhandler: That would be fine.

Judge goes: So what's the difference and Klown changes his mind. No, can't do that.

Judge: OK, what else do you want me to know?

I'll be honest, if I were representing MLB/MLBPA I'd probably stand up and just ask the Judge if she needs to hear anything from me

Klownhandler: My softball guy was told that the teams cancelled because the ASG was pulled. It's in his affidavit

Judge, looking: No it's not

Klown, reflecting: OK, no, but I can amend it to add that

This is just brutal. Judge: No need for an injunction, money damages are fine

Klown: No

Judge: YOUR CLIENT said it would be fine

Klown: But an injunction would be easier

Judge: Don't you need to show a super high likelihood of relief given that you're asking for all of the relief in the case?

Klown: No, we briefed that, we're just asking you to restore the status quo

Judge: Dumbkopf, you ignored the other half of the standard

Judge: You keep wanting to argue the Georgia law is a good law. But who the hell cares? Under your theory, let's say Planned Parenthood had announced a convention for GA 2 years ago, and then 3 months before the convention GA outlaws abortion. You're saying PP still has to go?

Klownhandler: No

Judge: So they could move it to Colorado?

Klown: Yes, because that would be a valid reason. This isn't a valid reason.

I'm impressed at the amount of time this judge is spending trying to help Klownhandler understand how stupid his arguments are. Most judges would just have said "thank you Mr. Klown, you can sit down now" long since

The judge is so fucking exasperated right now. Trying to explain to klown that his example of "10 KKK members blocking a polling place" would actually be a problem

Judge: I don't get how this is hindering GA from providing equal protection to its citizens. It's not preventing the state from protecting its black, white, asian, male, female, etc. citizens. Where's the equal protection issue?

Klown: They haven't gotten an All Star Game

Klown: Dead silence

Judge: OK, enough, sit down. Let's hear from MLB

MLB Lawyer: I don't know that I have much to say, you kind of hit all my points already, even the 1st Amendment

Judge: What did MLB say was the reason it moved the game

MLB Lawyer: Quotes press release saying "best way to support our value of supporting voting rights". The only Constitutional issue would be if you enjoined them from doing that

MLB is done. Union up. Gets the judge to crack up by noting that they don't often agree with the league office, but here ...

MLBPA: What the hell are we doing here? They say we're a conspirator, but they cite all sorts of things showing there was no agreement with the union

Union lawyer just rolled through with no questions. Klown is back up.

"We haven't talked about the deprivation clause" Oh dear.

MLB is punishing GA residents with the aim of forcing GA to change the law. I argue that the mere threat & harassments is a violation of the deprivation clause. (Dude is out of his fucking mind)

A business boycotting a state over a law is not a violation of the deprivation clause.

Klown: The equal protection violation is preventing the citizens of Atlanta from getting the economic benefit. And not having the GA voting law would violate equal protection

Klown: Letting MLB do this would be preclearance again

Judge <flabber fully and audibly ghasted>: Wha- wha- wait? What? Say that again?

Klown: If Congress can't do it under Shelby county, MLB certainly can't

Judge: Did you make that argument in your brief?

<He did, she apparently blacked out the memory in self defense; there's only so much stupidity one normal mind can hold>

Klown: The union is in because its clear they communicated with Manfred about this

Judge: Communication isn't enough

Klown: No. But we have evidence they agreed, which is that they communicated

Judge is trying to pick her jaw off the floor, AFAICT.

"Your complaint has to have some facts"

Klown: The facts are in the complaint

Judge: Where? It says "aware of the GA law".

Klown: We conclusorily alleged there was an agreement

Klown: We named them as a defendant because we need them to play in the ASG

I ... I just can't

Klown: Your honor, I think the perception you have that MLB can have an opinion on the voting law is inconsistent with the congressional statutes about what harm you can cause.

Now again arguing that MLB's opinion is substantively wrong.

Klown: You are not allowed to choose to move a business from one state to another based on not liking the laws GA made. Maybe you disagree, but that's not a valid reason, SCOTUS says this is ok

Judge: NO! SCOTUS said it's not unconstitutional. That doesn't mean it's good policy. People are allowed to disagree that a particular policy is good, even if it's legal.

Judge: So do you lose based on that

Klown: But that's wrong

Judge: Assume it's right

Klown: Picks up his shovel and keeps digging through the courtroom floor

Judge: Companies have first amendment rights to disagree on policy and move on that basis.

Judge: You know I'm not going to find that moving the ASG intimidates the GA legislature, right?

Klown: No. You're going to find that it does.

Klown: You just have to find intimidation

Judge: Who was intimidated?

Klown: GA

Judge: How?

Klown: They were punished

Judge: Punishment isn't intimidation!

Judge: OK, enough. Anyone else

MLBPA: Not only hasn't he PLED anything against us, but to get an injunction he needs evidence and he has none

Judge: Let's take a 5 minute break

She'll be ruling from the bench shortly, y'all

Note for non-lawyers (and non-longtime followers): Rulings from the bench are rare. Usually, judges like to take time to mull over what they heard at argument, even if only to flesh out how they address certain legal points in their ruling. This ... does not require that time.

Judge is back. Motion is denied. Plaintiff lacks standing. No showing of irreparable harm. Can't reach the merits because Plaintiff has no standing.

They're about to have their case dismissed without any motion by the defendants

She's reading a full, written decision into the record, complete with citations, btw. I have a work call at 5, so I hope she reads quick

Going through the standards on standing, including organizational standing

Now discussing standing to seek injunctive relief. Can't rely on past injuries, only future injury. Here, Plaintiff alleges no future injury to JCN itself.

Nowhere does the complaint allege how moving the ASG could have any impact on JCN's mission of advocating against bad policy. No, spending money on advocacy doesn't count when that's already its mission.

Littler Girl has now come downstairs and is loudly playing with noisemaking toys, so I'm not hearing this fully clearly, and I've got to jump off for this work call. @questauthority has you covered for any additional big points from this opinion