Oddly, judge is questioning and "is disinclined" to rescind the RIF notices that have already issued. The union lawyer is slightly panicked at this and is now claiming there were RIF notices sent out earlier in the year that had expired, and were reissued during the shutdown, and they don't want any of that happening and those RIF notices should be rescinded at least.
"Now tell me about recissions," says the judge. The union lawyer tries to turn on the waterworks with the declarations from all those poor union employees who have sleepless nights and anguish with RIFs hanging over their heads, etc. The judge, having received many declarations from the Dept of Interior that the RIFs were planned prior to the shutdown, and thinks the injunction maybe shouldn't extend to them. The union lawyer again wasn't expecting this (neither was I) and still sputters that it would be unlawful even if they had planned those RIFs beforehand. They sound like they're coming to a compromise where they'll have an evidentiary hearing.
The union lawyer blathers on about the timing of the RIFs and how doing it NOW is arbitrary and capricious.
Judge asks the union lawyer about the defense's concerns about the reporting requirements the plaintiffs have requested, basically every RIF you've ever though about maybe issuing. Union lawyer continues to insist that the defense has refused to submit stuff they've asked for, refused to identify which agencies might be having dreams about RIFs at night, and so on. And how all the defense has said is that they'll comply with the TRO. But we think there are more plans being made and actions being taken behind our backs so they should submit to our reporting requests.
Young lawyer man is back up for round 2. Scope and relief. He wants to clarify that any injunctive relief only applies to what's been specified (more or less). He says "corner cases" again and judge needs to be reminded of what that means. Pointless digression. A "paradigmatic example" as he said before, not "bedrock" but more like in an engineering context. "It's what the law is, we consider hypotheticals," an extreme case that is easy to understand because it's "accented." Argh.
He offers the example of the USPTO (the Patent and Trademark Office) which has been contemplating RIFs since March. There's no connection to the shutdown. Same with the Department of Interior. Plaintiffs have been shifting the extent of relief, and he thinks their claims won't stand on the merits (like the judge is going to care about that).
Judge says she got multiple declarations from Interior and wants to know if they should have an evidentiary hearing because they all said different things. (I would point out that they were all in response to differently-worded orders, and the young lawyer dude KIND OF says that but unnecessarily wordily.) Judge against says she's concerned about those facts because "they keep changing," and young lawyer tries to regroup on that with how fast the case has been moving, especially with the moving targets and the changing filing deadlines that were imposed on them, as well as the confusion about the wording of the original TRO. If the judge wants reporting requirements, they should be reasonable and with reasonable deadlines. The 48-hour demands they've had up till now have not been that reasonable.
He mentions the Solicitor General possibly authorizing an appeal. It went by fast, but all parties are probably realizing that this was a warning.
Judge wants lawyer dude to look at HHS's website (which he says he has not seen). She obviously wanted to smack him with the splash page there. What a snotty bitch. She was so disappointed when he said he hadn't seen it and she couldn't make any snarky remarks about it.
So! She will issue a written order later today, but she immediately, just as I predicted, rules that the unions ARE likely to succeed on the merits, and the Trump admin DID act in an arbitrary and capricious way. She is ordering the preliminary injunction granted. The defendants are enjoined from issuing any more RIF notices because of the shutdown, and from implementing any during the shutdown. The dispute about whether it's related or unrelated to the shutdown might have to have an evidentiary hearing. She'll figure that out later.
The preliminary injunction will not apply to RIF notices that were issued before the shutdown. But the government's request for a stay is denied. She will consider the defense's request regarding the reporting requirements.
The union lawyer has more to say. On an evidentiary hearing, union lawyer bitches about the "during or because of" the shutdown dispute, and wants the reissuance of RIFs to be addressed. The union wants the TRO or preliminary injunction to b e in place to protect any of those potential plaintiffs.
"The preliminary injunction IS in effect as of now."
So let's all hope an application for stay to SCOTUS is forthcoming, like I said before. Probably won't happen until later in the week, after the written order is issued so they can deal with the specific text in it (and probably review the transcript of the hearing too).
...... is that a real tweet?
