By my read, this temporary injunction applies ONLY to the plaintiff states - Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. It doesn't stop it from being applied in the rest of the country.
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
53 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
924 readers
240 users here now
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable
Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up
Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)
Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I could be wrong, but I think this could be due to how the states' suit is worded? As in, I think it's worded as, "you can't do that in our state," and not, "you can't do that full stop."
From another site:
Attorneys general from 18 other states also sued over the order in federal court in Massachusetts.
Brown [AG filing the suit] noted his lawsuit is similar, but said he felt Washington should lead a separate case because of “specific and unique harms that are brought here.” He also said that “we have a very good set of judges in our bench here in Washington, so I feel like this is the right place.”
(My emphasis.)
So, a good first step, and while this should be struck down in its entirety, my reading is that this was a lawsuit with limited scope, and the injunction matches the limited scope.
Agreed. I thought it was important to highlight anyway because it's a detail with a significant impact for a lot of people that hasn't been highlighted in any of the media coverage I've seen.