re: Bogus NY Treasury Case: Judge took less than 4 hours to review 60 page complaint and rule

I'm not a scholar on the Supreme Court in terms of this, but 99% of the time you'll have to go through your circuit first, if not more.

That's why you see so many injunctions against GOP orders from the west coast (9th Circuit) and so many ones against DEM orders from TX (5th Circuit).

I can look into it more, but as a rule you should imagine this as the typical district > appellate > USSC routine.

Not the other guy, but Rule 11 deals with taking an expedited appeal on a matter before the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court can decide whether to grant cert and hear the case Supreme Court Rules

Procedurally, the case is still in the lower court. Feb 9 the court ordered the parties to confer and if no agreement was reached Trump/Bessent had to file their motion yesterday. That motion was filed Court Listener Docket. That motion would need to be disposed before filing an interlocutory appeal the the 2nd Circuit. Once there a Rule 11 motion could be made

Thanks to you both.

quote:

---

They clearly judge/forum shopped, just like this injunction against Biden vax mandates. I didn't see the pearl clutching on here when that injunction dropped.

---

i followed your link in the above paragraph

Biden’s mandate was announced in September 2021, set to go into effect in January 2022

The Senate voted to rescind it in December but the House refused to take it up

Feds for Medical Freedom v Biden was filed on December 21, 2021

Judge Brown issued his injunction a month later, on January 21, 2022


please explain to the class how this timeline compares with Englemeyer’s ex parte injunction four hours after the collection of blue state AGs filed suit against Trump and Bessent

It is being looked at by another court right now. Hoping we get an overturn today.

quote:

---

What a strange way to say "I don't know of any cases against the Biden Administration that replicate this situation."

---

No I posted an adequate example of forum shopping

quote:

---

What does this have to do with forum shopping?

---

what does forum shopping have to do with the OP?

do you think forum shopping is the primary complaint of those here criticizing the injunction?

quote:

---

What does this have to do with forum shopping?

---

SFP, I am one of the few people who really do appreciate your input. I frequently agree with you on legal procedural issues and Constitutional matters.

For you to pretend our complaint is about ordinary forum shopping---in which all good litigators engage---however, is insulting.

You don't think the circumstances suggest possible collusion?

quote:

---

SFP, I am one of the few people who really do appreciate your input.

---

quote:

---

ordinary forum shopping---in which all good litigators engage

---

I appreciate the candor, but that is exactly the kind of US legal system corrupt nonchalance which many of us on the outside find so unsettling.

Imagine for a moment discovering that Alabama had been able to "forum shop" for referees prior to every LSU game. It would be a huge national scandal, and that is just for a game. You're nonchalantly referencing an identical precept in a forum affecting people's lives, and livelihoods.

Lawyers accustomed to built-in system-wide corruption (my outsider's terminology for prosecutorial forum shopping, amongst other things), all too often simply respond, "Ho-hum, that's just the way it is, Buckaroo." It's not dissimilar to Deputy Defense Secretary Kathy Hicks' response in the Jon Stewart interview covering DOD budget accountability ... "Yeah, sure, we cannot account for >$1 trillion over a number of yrs. So what? It's not my fault. It's just the way it is. But you seem really focused on it for some reason, Jon."

SFP, whose input I also appreciate, is simply extending that nonchalance a smidgen further than what you'd ID as the "norm." There is nothing different in the principle of one vs the other. Just at some point the unseemliness apparently becomes more obvious??