iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

25SC134 | Colorado Judicial Branch

The opinion is available here: www.coloradojudicial.gov/node/17940

coloradojudicial.gov

It was decided at summary judgment on the waiver issue, apparently. Didn't get to trial at all

030

Yeah, so this is an order granting permanent relief on the claims in the complaint with *no* answer filed and *no* pending motion. Just a freestanding order making a final merits decision. Absolute procedural Calvinball

000

Obviously if the circuit court resolves the only legal issue, that functionally dictates judgment. But normally I'd still think the district court should determine the remedy/scope of relief in the first instance—the only reason for a perm injunction now is to get around the current SCOTUS stay

Yeah, instead of just affirming the (stayed) TRO, they are ordering a new permanent injunction with a totally different timeline/only a brief admin stay. Seems clearly designed to avoid the prior order and make SCOTUS have to affirmatively step in again

020

Yeah, even seeing the prior cases I'm a little perplexed at what the district court is being required to do. Basically sua sponte issue final judgment for the plaintiffs on just the complaint and TRO papers, before there's been any answer filed (let alone a motion for judgment)

110

Thanks for tracking that down! Amandola is wild—there was a two-day evidentiary hearing on the PI, so there is some record. But ordering final judgment (and specifically granting dec relief but not a perm injunction) on a PI appeal of a fact-specific First Amendment claim seems totally improper

030

Technically, the initial stance was 'either you can't appeal a TRO or this doesn't meet the factors for a stay' Not the best model of a reasoned decision...

110

It's extremely wild that we're here, and also I don't know that people are actually thinking about "all that entails" when they answer a really extreme hypothetical in a poll

070

What's the procedural mechanism by which the Appellate Court can order a permanent injunction from a TRO appeal? Is there any other scenario where a circuit court has ordered final judgment for a plaintiff without full pleadings/a motion for judgment below?

Josh Block @joshablock.bsky.social · 21/09/2026

This is what's making my head explode—the appeal was of a TRO! There's no motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment currently before the court that could be granted, but the Eighth Circuit just issued an order for the district court to make a sua sponte final merits decision anyway

120

Reposted by Robin

1. Under what possible procedural mechanism can a court of appeals affirm a TRO and remand for entry of a *permanent injunction* when there hasn’t even been an answer to the complaint? 2. This just openly defies Kavanaugh’s stay of the order until disposition of a cert petition.

65424

I was just talking about (1) with colleagues, and the consensus is "what the hell?!" It seems like an obvious attempt to avoid the SCOTUS stay of the TRO by creating a new, unstayed and procedurally inappropriate, order

080

So SCOTUS does need to issue a new stay of the permanent injunction, but it's being issued on exactly the same grounds as the TRO, so there is no reason to treat it differently

130

I think what's happening is that instead of just affirming the TRO, which would be stayed, the 8th Circuit went further and ordered the district court to issue a (new) permanent injunction. That's basically telling SCOTUS to pound sand, since they think that injunction isn't currently stayed

240

Isn't this also already stayed by the terms of the SCOTUS shadow docket stay? I guess the Eighth Circuit thinks ordering a permanent injunction is enough to avoid the stay of the TRO, which it might be, but it is incredibly weird for an appellate court to order final judgment on a TRO appeal

Sep 10 2026
Application (26A326) for stay presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to the Court is granted. The September 8, 2026 order entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in case No. 4:26–cv–1424 is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

160

This decision is still stayed by the SCOTUS order, right? If I recall, that stay lasts through a petition for cert is denied, time to file has passed, or SCOTUS enters judgment (if they grant cert)

150

So this is technically 1.66667 or 0.06667 of a stadium, but I'm not entirely sure which

020

Robin @robinsloth.bsky.social · 17/09/2026

It sure is... tho I tend to think the more a poll gets into wild hypotheticals, the less it gets real answers to the specific question. Unlike with a policy or election poll, there's no junta waiting for public opinion to act. So the only effect of a yes is signaling that you *really* want him out

000

Had to evacuate the 24th Street BART when the tracks at the station CAUGHT FIRE I thought I'd left spontaneously combusting transit behind when I moved out of DC

020

Reposted by Robin

ALJ Dredd @unionsaltbae.bsky.social · 17/09/2026

Me: Hi Court, here are some exhibits Court: how do we know these are real and you're not lying? Me: why would I lie about-- Court: SWEAR. Me: what Court: SWEAR IT. ON YOUR GRANDMOTHERS GRAVE. OR YOU WILL GO TO PRISON FOREVER Me: okay okay geez

0141

Robin @robinsloth.bsky.social · 17/09/2026

Ahh, but there's no way to know for sure until someone tries! I for one appreciate his commitment to the experiment

000

Reposted by Robin

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

BREAKING: SCOTUS denies the Trump administration’s request to enforce the new U.S. Postal Service rule for the 2026 elections. Justices Alito and Thomas dissent. More to come at Law Dork. www.lawdork.com

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 26A305
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL. U.
CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[September 14, 2026]
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is denied. The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court's preliminary injunction. And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.
In my view, based on the briefing the Court has received at this interim stage, there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority. See 39 U. S. C. §401(2). But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections. See 39
U. S. C. §3001(m); 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A). For that reason, I concur in the denial of the application for stay.

532655753

Robin @robinsloth.bsky.social · 14/09/2026

I guess she really called that one

Bichotte Hermelyn sitting on a bench in an orange suit with orange pumps, turned toward the camera, with a caption reading "ILLEGAL!"

0112

Reposted by Robin

Leah Greenberg ❌👑 @leahgreenberg.bsky.social · 14/09/2026

PSA: No Kings is a coalition, not an org, and it does not do fundraising appeals for itself. Partner orgs raise money for costs we're incurring to put it on. But if you get a text from "NO KINGS" or a PAC you've never heard of before asking for $ that is a scam and you should block/shame away.

41006422

Reposted by Robin

Ed Markey @edmarkey.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

In Massachusetts, we have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable and stand up for those who need it. We don’t throw trans kids under the bus for political points. We protect them—and all of our neighbors—because trans rights are human rights.

150107991822

Reposted by Robin

Aleksandra Vaca @transiticsnews.com · 10/09/2026

I’m a Texan trans kid who almost died because of Ken Paxton. The world should know what he’s done. This was very difficult for me to write, but given what's at stake, I cannot bear to stay silent about what I went through at Paxton's hands. He must not be rewarded for what he's done to trans kids.

transiticsnews.com

I’m a Texan Trans Kid Who Almost Died Because of Ken Paxton. The World Should Know What He’s Done.

Regardless of Talarico’s recent statements on trans people, Paxton cannot be rewarded for the extreme suffering he’s inflicted on me and tens of thousands of Texan trans kids.

9064172557

Quinn Yeargain @yeargain.bsky.social · 10/09/2026

The extent of compliance that comes from a "show up in person and explain yourself" order is remarkable and should be used much much more

050

Reposted by Robin

wow, it seems like the threat of sanctions and contempt proceedings can actually get results. I'm sure there are no lessons to draw from this.

6659135

Reposted by Robin

Quinn Yeargain @yeargain.bsky.social · 10/09/2026

That was fast: the Missouri Supreme Court is ordering SoS Denny Hoskins to appear at a 2:00 PM contempt hearing today. (h/t to @ablativmeatshld.bsky.social for flagging this!)

order from Missouri Supreme Court reading: "The Court hereby orders Respondent Denny Hoskins and counsel for parties to the contempt
proceeding to appear today, September 10, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in the Division I courtroom."

link: https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/Order.PDF?courtCode=SC&di=222979

1032285

Chiming in as someone else who heard "advise" It would have been even more shocking for the Chief Justice to independently order that from the bench.

000

While I was listening, I was expecting the phrase to be something like: "In the meantime, I would advise the SoS not to venture far from our orders." When he said "Jefferson City," I audibly gasped on a public train

0200

This was particularly interesting because (although I tuned in late) the tone of Pl's initial argument seemed to be "now that SCOTUS weighed in, we can all take a breath before figuring out what to do re: possible prior contempt" But when the state failed to provide assurances, he pivoted so fast

000

Something you don't see every day: the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court advising the Secretary of State not to leave town, or as he put it here, "not to venture far from Jefferson City"

211826

The rebuttal in the Missouri contempt hearing was extraordinary. The lawyer responded to the SoS/AG obfuscation by going as hard as I've ever seen—asking to order local officials directly and essentially appoint an alternative AG in the federal matters

120

Possibly he doesn't want to be in the minority if Dems do manage to get to 52 Senate seats? Or it's not that strategic—it's probably more fun to be every Republican's favorite Dem than to be just another GOP Senator among the rest