🚨🚨Missouri v. Biden: The 5th circuit remands the governments request for a stay on the Temporary Injunction (relating to enjoined Kennedy plaintiffs,) and acknowledge that Kennedy plaintiffs may hit the SCOTUS created definition for standing to reach a temporary injunction barring the government from contacting social media companies to coerce censorship. I’ll explain more below.
RFK petitioned the court in Missouri v. Biden to enjoin his case to this one - it was very similar. The judge agreed. He too asked for the injunction, but the judge in the case was waiting for the SCOTUS to apply it.
The government jumped in to ask for a stay on the KENNEDY injunction (which would be the same as the original) because they were going to appeal if it took place. The issue for them is, the Kennedy case meets the absurd standing requirements that SCOTUS put into place for the case.
This went to the 5th, the 5th acknowledged the difference, put a temp administrative stay on the stay (I know it’s confusing) and sent it back down to the district court for him to review the Kennedy case (now enjoined) and ensure it hits the standing requirement that the SCOTUS required.
But they also admit it likely does, in their own language. This is SO INTERESTING. If one Plaintiff hits standing, all do - and remember - this is ONLY for the temporary injunction and based on limited discovery - not for the entire case. Crazy times.
Also - I’m still reviewing this as the record is complicated - and I am pretty sure I have this right but any attorney out there is free to critique my analysis here. The parties are getting muddled. lol.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
