As we await SCOTUS re Missouri, consider how non judicious CA8’s conduct is. The only adverse party was before the district court for *2 hrs* total. No one moved for judgment or a permanent inj. CA8 declared the trial proceedings done so they could bypass SCOTUS stay. 1/
3
4
100
11,640
Courts of appeals review specific orders that are appealed. If they thought the TRO was correct, they should have affirmed it. But they knew that wouldn’t unsettle the SCOTUS stay. 2/
1
20
1,601
So they just declared the trial proceedings over! On review of a TRO for which no hearing was held, when no party asked for consolidation of the PI and final merits under FRCP 65, and no one moved for summary judgment. 3/
2
20
1,484
A first year law student knows that the federal rules have quite a few steps between filing the complaint and entry of final judgment. CA8 just skipped them all! 4/
1
25
1,310
Judges are generally supposed to decide requests of litigants. No one asked CA8 to expedite the appeal, no one asked for judgment, no one asked for a permanent injunction. Judicial restraint involves adhering to the party presentation rule. Judges don’t act as litigants. 5/
3
24
1,264
There are other big flaws (three judge court statute, issuing an injunction that on its face results in NO map). But the magnitude of CA8’s abandonment of the rule of law in this case warrants great attention. That we are at SCOTUS a 3d time after votes have been cast is absurd.
Sep 24, 2026 · 4:21 PM UTC
2
38
1,184
