NOTE: Robart does NOT rule on Washington's second request, for a TRO against the new EO. Robart says a ruling on that will come separately.pic.twitter.com/7AYMh62V2x
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
NOTE: Robart does NOT rule on Washington's second request, for a TRO against the new EO. Robart says a ruling on that will come separately.pic.twitter.com/7AYMh62V2x
Of c, Washington's request — to issue a TRO halting enforcement of sections 2(c) and 6(a) of the new EO — is already covered by Hawaii TRO.
The Hawaii TRO is against all of sections 2 & 6. So, this TRO request would not expand the scope of the injunction—but'd be another ruling.
(And the prelim injunction in Maryland is against section 2(c) of the new EO, so that's out of commission doubly already.)
Meanwhile, there has been no further action — appeal or requests for stay or clarification — in the HI or MD cases from DOJ as of now.
@foxnews @DOJ @jeffsessions That's bec he KNOW's HIS ruling is against the law and the Constitution! Resign!
I think you read his order incorrectly.
That's a really friendly way of framing it
That ruling makes sense. Is Robart going to hear argument on whether EO2 should be restrained as EO1 was?
Addressed in the thread.
Yes, thank you. Sorry for jumping the gun!
so Washington can file a separate case related to just the new case right?
Addressed in the thread.
I saw thanks :)
They will hear a new TRO, already filed, and expressly didn't address legality of EO2.
Please see the ... very next tweet ... in the thread, which addressed that.
I know you knew. Just threw on that tweet b/c I didn't see it was a thread.
thanks, we didn't have this -
Charming! with all that happened today , we can at least say we had a victory.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.