I Will Quote Only The Ninth Circuit Dissent -- In This Temporary Stay Order, Out Of Portland, This Morning...

I expect this will all get sorted out in early September -- and the court has ordered that the "marking of press emblems" discussions. . . continue, while the briefing -- and argument -- in the Ninth Circuit proceeds.

We should know soon enough, but here is the just entered order -- and that dissenting bit, which is the better view of the applicable law here:

. . . .McKEOWN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I respectfully dissent and would deny the Federal Defendants’ request for an administrative stay. The factual conclusions underlying the entry of a preliminary injunction are reviewed for clear error. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

In light of the deferential review accorded to the district court’s factual finding at this stage, the district court’s extensive factual findings with respect to journalists and legal observers, including the finding that the injunction would not impair law enforcement operations to protect federal property and personnel, and the fact that a temporary restraining order has been in place since July 23, 2020, the government has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate either an emergency or irreparable harm to support an immediate administrative stay. I concur in the order with respect to the markings. . . .

Onward, grinning -- at DC. . . this morning.

नमस्ते