There was a thread here this morning, based on an article by Kurt Schlichter. He said just the opposite, he said he had never seen a TRO in federal court. He said, and this is as close as possible to a quote, they are an exception to exceptions. That was a good part of his argument about why all of these decisions will fail.
Schlichter is right and Kelly is wrong. The injunctive relief in courts are three fold - first a TRO (temporary restraining order) Is granted to preserve the status quo ante to prevent harm or damage before a ruling. Usually it is with full notice and hearing of both sides.
The second step after a more full hearing but not for a final decision, is the preliminary injunction. It restrains actions, and does not mandate them.
The third phase is the final full injunction. It may or may not be granted depending on the evidence and law.
As for TROs Schlichter is correct in that the usual requests are turned aside. I had a mentor lawyer tell me that you ask for a TRO to educate the judge, not because you expect to have it granted. He said that the only definite TRO he could imagine is to tell the judge that nuclear missiles are in the air aimed at the USA, and without the TRO damage will occur. It never happens. It is a high burden of proof.
Having said that, I believe that there is a huge lack of standing for all of these spurious TROs. There are no named individual plaintiffs.
Just my $0.02 after 43 years practicing law.
Gwjack