• mkwt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    There’s a lot of moving pieces with multiple court actions.

    Judge Carter denied the TRO to segregate the 20k ballots. Because he declined to issue any order, Judge Carter did not prohibit the feds from doing anything, like these subpoenas. But he did say he would be very unhappy. This case went all the way through the 9th circuit yesterday, and I expect it to show up at the supreme court today if it’s not already there.

    In the SEIU case, public employee unions that represent CA election workers went to court to stop the harassment from the feds. They won a same day, ex parte, TRO enjoining the feds from doing the shit in the headline with the subpoenas. That happened on Friday; yesterday the feds appealed to the 9th circuit. This suit is not mentioned in the article.

    There’s a 3rd case, headlined by “California Nurses Association”, that won a bigger injunction against election worker intimidation practices in multiple states. CA Nurses is further along in the appeals process than SEIU.

    Both of the injunction cases have some legal problems. They purport to restrict the feds from doing certain subpoenas or certain indictments before they actually do them. The feds are going to claim the court doesn’t have the power to enjoin that

    The long established legal remedy for a bad subpoena is a motion to quash in the individual case. And the remedy for a bad indictment is a motion to dismiss.

    The other side of that argument is going to be that the feds’ behaviour is so egregious, and the stakes are so high, that the equitable power of injunction can expand to meet this task.

    TLDR: Lower judges are saying they can’t even issue the subpoenas. They could very well be overruled. If they do, then they would have to fight each individual subpoena.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      27 minutes ago

      Both of the injunction cases have some legal problems. They purport to restrict the feds from doing certain subpoenas or certain indictments before they actually do them

      In normal times, it’s a good idea for someone to be harmed before you try to redress that harm. But this is one of the things that must change in today’s dysfunctional government, where people don’t hesitate to illegally demolish things first in order to say “now you have to let me build a gold plated ballroom for my 900 closest friends”. What good is a justice system that can’t stop injustice?