[Dont Mention the War]

A federal court's jurisdiction must be based upon federal law. (excepting in a "diversity" case which doesn't apply here). Even aside from the (apparent) lack of a federal question, there isn't any basis I'm aware of for a court to enjoin a legislative body from even considering an issue.

I don't think anybody's saying the Nevada Legislature can't meet and hash out whatever it wants. What we're saying is that if they're meeting because of a blatantly unconstitutional COMMAND from the state Supreme Court to go into session and create and pass a specific bill, which the state Supreme Court has no right to order and which tramples on the state's own constitution and the most fundamental rights of its citizens, then any such "bill" passed by the legislature will be null and void, precisely because it will be in violation of the state's constitution and was created only due to illegal coercion.

[Mr. Lucky]

Frankly, I think the Article IV argument is a good one, but shouldn't the injunction have been issued against the State Supreme Court? They are the ones who have usurped the republican form of government.