Hudson Tunnel Federal Slap-Down, For Tangerine 2.0 Forces... On Appeal.

So, Tangerine's appeal of his complete loss in Manhattan's federal trial courts here will not be heard until next year -- in all likelihood.

I love it! Here's that order -- and a bit:

. . .ORDER of USCA (Certified Copy) as to [46] Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by United States Department of Transportation [et al.]. . .

USCA Case Number 26-0282.The practical effect of the challenged injunction is to leave [Trump's] DOT obligated to make regularly scheduled payments of millions of dollars to the GDC.

“[T]he loss of money is not typically considered irreparable harm” unless “the funds cannot be recouped and are thus irrevocably expended.” National Institutes of Health v. Am. Pub. Health Ass’n (“NIH v. APHA”), 606 U.S. ---, 145 S. Ct. 2658, 2659 (2025) (internal quotation marks omitted). While DOT asserts that, if successful on the merits, it will not be able to recoup its payments to GDC given that entity’s exhaustion of its resources, the record casts doubt on that assertion, indicating that (1) on March 12, 2026, the Court of Federal Claims is expected to issue a ruling in GDC’s case challenging DOT’s suspension of payments, and such a decision -- going either way -- may well end (or, at least, significantly narrow) the instant action; (2) DOT’s next payment obligation does not arise until sometime after March 12, 2026; and (3) in any event, DOT acknowledges that some of its payment obligations to GDC are pursuant to loans guaranteed by New York and New Jersey, which are not shown to be unable to meet their obligations.

Thus, because DOT fails to show the irreparable injury required to secure a stay pending appeal, its motion is properly denied on that ground. Cf. Care One, LLC v. NLRB, 166 F.4th at 343 (observing that court has “routinely -- even summarily -- upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction based on a movant’s failure to demonstrate irreparable harm without considering other requirements for such relief,” specifically, “likelihood of success on the merits” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

In the absence of any showing of irreparable harm, DOT must do more than show that the merits of its jurisdictional challenge are debatable to secure a stay pending appeal. See Mohammed v. Reno, 309 F.3d at 101 (suggesting, on stay motion, “probability of success that must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the amount of irreparable injury [movant] will suffer absent the stay” (internal quotation marks omitted)). DOT has not done that here. . . .

"Inversely proportional". . . hilarious!

नमस्ते