I am Tom Freeland, a lawyer in Oxford, Mississippi. The picture in the header is my law office. I'm on Twitter as NMissC

Missing Posts: If you have a link to a post that's not here or are looking for posts from Summer of 2010, check this page.


An element for a TRO is proving likely success. Judge “is not holding that the executive order was legally flawed.” Discuss.

This appeared about 5 on the district court docket.  I have added emphasis in the key passage..

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. APPEARANCES: D. Kaufman and C. Green, counsel for plaintiff; H. Pizzetta (via telephone) and J. Wilson, counsel for defendant; J. Corlew, counsel for intervenor. Evidentiary Hearing held on 10/28/2013. This Court GRANTED 4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of MS; however, the court is not holding that the executive order was legally flawed. The court has scheduled a hearing for November 5 at 9:00 a.m. for the parties to present evidence and testimony on the basis of this lawsuit. Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide the court with a list of their witnesses to be called at the Nov 5 hearing by October 29; and defense shall provide their list of witnesses by October 30. A Conference Call was set for October 30 at 3:00 p.m. for a status report prior to the November 5 hearing. (Court Reporter Cherie Bond, 601-608-4186) (TRS) (Entered: 10/28/2013)

A classic element for a TRO or preliminary injunction is proving likely success, which here I would think mean that BCBS has shown likely success on a claim that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (as opposed to that it was “legally flawed.”  Legally flawed in what sense?)

Comments would be nice to discuss this.  My preliminary comment:  One of my pet peeves is “status quo” TROs.

Comments are closed.