The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Dywinski v. State Of New York (SAFE Act Challenge)

LancelotLink · February 28, 2013, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Maxb49
As a matter of law, temporary restraining orders cannot be granted against a State, body, or officer from carrying out Statutory law. You need a full injunction. This is the way it was in the CPLR, every judge's hands are tied regarding TROs. Nevertheless, the team applied for a TRO. The judge simply cannot grant the request. This isn't simply a lawsuit. The way the order is written places the burden on the State to demonstrate the Constitutionality of the law. That's a major shift from the Petitioner having to prove that the law is unconstitutional. Remember, the judge was not required to sign the order. Further, Mr. Holtz now has a court order. That's a big deal.

This is not always the case.

Edit to add bold until I find the quote button.

February 28, 2013, 01:12 PM	#201
LancelotLink Member Join Date: February 27, 2013 Posts: 32	Originally Posted by Maxb49 As a matter of law, temporary restraining orders cannot be granted against a State, body, or officer from carrying out Statutory law. You need a full injunction. This is the way it was in the CPLR, every judge's hands are tied regarding TROs. Nevertheless, the team applied for a TRO. The judge simply cannot grant the request. This isn't simply a lawsuit. The way the order is written places the burden on the State to demonstrate the Constitutionality of the law. That's a major shift from the Petitioner having to prove that the law is unconstitutional. Remember, the judge was not required to sign the order. Further, Mr. Holtz now has a court order. That's a big deal. This is not always the case. Edit to add bold until I find the quote button. Last edited by LancelotLink; March 1, 2013 at 12:02 AM.