Schedule Now Set, For Briefing On Motion To Clarify / Expand The Prelim. Inj., In The "DEI Is Okay" Cases, In Baltimore: Monday And Tuesday...

And yet another appellate court has held against Team Tangerine 2.0 -- on much the same grounds: he cannot seem to grasp that he is subject to Constitutional checks and balances. He is. . . in a word, no king.

The Fourth Circuit has bounced Team Tangerine 2.0 out on its ear, summarily -- in just two elapsed days (very much like the Ninth), thus:

. . .We join the Ninth Circuit in finding that the government has not made a “strong showing” that it is “likely to succeed on the merits” of its argument against universal injunctions. See Washington v. Trump, 2025 WL 553485, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2025) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434) (denying similar stay request). Our circuit precedent forecloses the government’s position that injunctions extending relief to those “similarly situated” to the plaintiffs are “categorically beyond the equitable power of district courts.” Roe, 947 F.3d at 232; see also HIAS, 985 F.3d at 326. And that precedent is based on our understanding that the Supreme Court, too, has “affirmed the equitable powers of district courts, in appropriate cases, to issue nationwide injunctions extending relief to those who are similarly situated to the litigants.” Roe, 947 F.3d at 232 (citing Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 582 U.S. 571, 580 (2017) (per curiam)). . . .

[I]t is notable that the government is not prepared to argue that it will likely prevail on the merits of the Executive Order itself. We are aware of no case -- and the government has not cited one – in which a court has stayed a preliminary injunction of a policy, already found likely unlawful, in which the movant did not argue for the policy’s legality. Under these circumstances, especially, we are hesitant to disturb a preliminary injunction that maintains the status quo while the lawfulness of the Executive Order is litigated. . . .

[And the upcoming schedule -- back in the Baltimore trial court:]

. . .Upon review of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Clarify Preliminary Injunction Order (ECF No. 50, “the Clarification Motion”), the following briefing deadlines will apply:

Defendants shall file their opposition to the Clarification Motion | Monday, March 3rd

Plaintiffs shall file their reply brief regarding the Clarification Motion | Tuesday, March 4th

The scheduling order regarding the Motion to Stay Injunction Pending Appeal (ECF No. 48), as outlined in ECF No. 49, remains unchanged.

Date: February 28, 2025

/s/ Adam B. Abelson

United States District Judge. . . .

Now you know. That brings the overall tally, to like 3 for 32 -- with Trump, on the losing end of that stick. Onward.

नमस्ते