IANAL but there seems to me to be a very high probability that the case is going to be dismissed.
The Government filed,
“DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION”
Which reads in part,
“Plaintiff has thus failed to show he will suffer any Article III injury at all—irreparable or otherwise—let alone an injury traceable to the guidance at issue or redressable by any relief that this Court could order.”
” Nor can Plaintiff demonstrate the requisite likelihood of success on the merits. First, his lack of standing, in addition to being a reason for dismissal, is fatal to his success on the merits.”
The judge ordered the Government to show cause as to why their “Memorandum” should not be considered a motion to dismiss. The Government filed a Notice which in part reads
“In accordance with the Court’s December 16, 2014 Order, Defendants have no objection to the Court construing Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).”
The court appears to be getting ready to dismiss the case for lack of standing (Arpaio) and jurisdiction (the court).
But that’s just my speculation, your speculation may vary.
I am not speculating anything. And I agree that this judge could dismiss. Thank you for the information you added to the thread.
I had reservations about Arpaio’s standing meaning that there is irreparable harm. But looking through Klayman’s motion and accompanying lawsuit, there is irreparable harm brought on by this Executive Action. In fact, there is irreparable harm brought to every County in the USA.
There is no doubt to any reasonably thinking person that this Executive Action of Obama’s will indeed encourage more violation of the border. That’s the harm and it’s irreparable because the County and the State have no power to do anything about it except to minimize the damage caused by it. The whole purpose of a preliminary injunction is to stop possible irreparable harm before it happens and then to argue later that it is indeed harm and indeed irreparable. In other words, the Judge need not have solid proof or evidence of the harm, but only the plausible possibility of the harm because the order requested is only temporary. This Judge knows that. The idea is to preserve the status quo.
This Judge knows that Obama’s action does not preserve the status quo and this Judge knows that if the status quo is not preserved, then there will be crimes, violence and substantial costs to law enforcement and to communities if illegal aliens are allowed to overrun the County and the State. The Judge knows this.
But the Judge may not care for Arpaio and seek instead to curry favor with Obama’s lawyers, but maybe not because Obama is on his way out and a new administration may remember what this Judge did. So we will just have to wait and see.
I have reservations about this Judge because it is reported that this Judge had once been a lead counsel for a notoriously liberal politician, so there’s no telling what this Judge will do.
In any event, one strength of this motion going forward is that the lead counsel for the plaintiff is very experienced with DC Courts and has been very successful with difficult legal proceedings in those courts. I imagine an appeal has already been prepared and is just waiting for the Judge’s denial of the motion.
There is the 24-State lawsuit filed by the Attorney General of Texas. The number of states that are joining that lawsuit is growing. It will be very difficult for a federal judge to dismiss that number of states based on no standing meaning no harm. That lawsuit is also filed in the Southern District of Texas where they have a different view than those held in DC.