The typical standard for injunctive relief requires the moving party to show the presence of four factors:
1. Likelihood of success on the merits.
2. Irreparable harm would occur if the injunction is not granted.
3. Would any other existing or potential litigants be harmed if the stay is granted.
4. The public interest favors grant of a stay.
I suppose you could argue both ways on factors 2 and 4. Irreparable harm is currently being done to business owners and others who are adversely affected by the governor’s office. The state can argue that the elimination of the governor’s orders would cause irreparable harm to those who will possibly contract the COVID-1984 virus.
If the Oregon law is as clear as the circuit judge’s decision indicated it was, it is hard to see how the Oregon Supreme Court could conclude with a straight face that the state has a likelihood of winning on the merits.
The governor ought to do the right thing and convene the legislature to vote whether or not to impose her order on the people of Oregon.
nd76. It’s Oregon, the mini-Marxist state clone of Uber Marxist California and Washington State. Political insanity is just as prevalent there as in its Marxist neighbors.
Nothing is going to change it until the conservatives and few remaining sane Democrats unite and clean house with flamethrowers.
The State Supreme court ruling will go in front of the USSC, and since it is wildly anti-Constitutional, the state will lose.
The problem is that the Democrats SHOULD be hung, but they will simply go back to work on stealing the November election.