I wish people's desire for the whole story would actually extend beyond what a journalist interprets a court decision to be.
The judge never said the plaintiffs had "plausible claims," he just sited their complaint and that they should be handled during the trial. The fact that denied the injunction pretty much means this case is going nowhere. Pretty common sense, if the case had a likelihood of success based on the plaintiffs' plausible claims, the judge would have granted the injunction. The rest of the decision cites some case precedence which more or less support that conclusion.After careful consideration, the court concludes that Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied in its entirety. Plaintiffs’ complaints state plausible claims upon which relief can be granted and should be permitted to proceed in the litigation. However, a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy to be granted in this circuit only upon a “clear showing” of entitlement. After thorough review of the record, the court finds that as to two challenged provisions of SL 2013-381, Plaintiffs have not made a clear showing they are likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying legal claims. As to the remaining provisions, the court finds that even assuming Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, they have not demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable harm - a necessary prerequisite for preliminary relief - before trial in the absence of an injunction. Consequently, the motions for prelimminary injunction and the United States’ request for federal observers will be denied. This resolution renders the motions to exclude expert testimony moot.
At this point, I wonder what this has cost the Federal government? Sadly, the current DOJ seems hell bent on continuing these fishing expeditions attempting to overturn established precedence.