Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
It seems really strange to me that the judge would want Chicago to have a hand in crafting the injunction at all.
By giving the City that option, the court can see if they are serious about mitigating the harm... Can you guess what that objection told the court?
Originally Posted by BGutzman
It seems like a city could leverage this tool forever to deny constitutional rights...
You really need to look at the phrasing of the order. There is no need to read between the lines.
In the order denying the MTD for Mootness, Judge Kendall was pretty clear that there was something still wrong with the Chicago ordinances. In the City's briefs (after the original motion was made), they made much about how they were amending that (newly made ordinance) to make it even more palatable to the Court. Remember also, in the plaintiffs opposition briefs, they detailed not only what was wrong with the proposed amendments, but the proposed amendments to the amendments (and the proposed amendment of the amendments to the amendments?).
That's why she invited the plaintiffs to file a new brief - detailing what is wrong and why.
The City knows exactly what the plaintiffs want in the injunction. As per the order, they absolutely have to know, because Gura would have submitted it to them for an agreed proposal (any bets that it wasn't pre-written and he didn't hand it over to Chicago the day of the order?). Chicago rejected it and Gura emailed the proposal to the Judge on the due date as a separate proposal.
Therefore, the Chicago "objection" was no real objection. If they firmly believed what they wrote (and had the grounds to stand upon), then they would have simply went back to the 7th Circuit (and the same panel that ruled against them, BTW) to voice what was wrong with Judge Kendall's order. That would have been a slam-dunk appeal. That they didn't is quite telling.
This is the point at which we get to see if Judge Kendall has been properly chastised by the 7th, or if she thinks she can still salvage the City's arguments and allow them to further stall the case (and that's all this "objection" really is).