|
For those of you who are pissed off at the judge, keep in mind that this is just a preliminary ruling, and it was to be expected.
In a challenge to a statute like this, the party bringing the lawsuit always asks for a TRO against enforcement of the law pending adjudication. The court then looks at the statute and the challenge to it, and rules based on whether the plaintiff has a reasonable chance of prevailing at trial. The standard is not all that high, and the court tends to error to the side of caution, particularly when the statute in question is highly controversial, and opposed at the executive level of government.
ANY time the case involves potential for federal preemption of state law, the court is pretty likely to put a TRO against enforcement in place. This is because the feds, historically, have come out on top of such arguments a healthy percentage of the time.
In short, this is a procedural ruling, NOT necessarily an indication of what the court will eventually decide.
It's just judicial business as usual folks, nothing more. In the end, this same court/judge may well rule for Arizona, entirely. This is also Step 1 of MANY to come. Settle in for a long ride... this case is not going to resolve quickly; it is going to be appealed by the losing side (whichever side that turns out to be) every step of the way.
__________________
Q. Boyer
|