Before we freak out about the Texas ACA ruling, I think we ought to hear from opposing counsel. Did anyone seek Rule 54(b) cert? Is it final? @maddow @lawrence @maddowblog @ap

This order seems to have grown out of a motion seeking a preliminary injunction. The Court then formed it into a motion for Partial Summary Judgment but that’s the problem. Under Fed. R. Civ. P Rule 54(b) the Court needs to make a specific finding to make the case appealable and enforceable. If he had ruled under the standard for preliminary injunctions last time I looked at it that order is appealable.  But an order on one count of the Amended Complaint that does not purport to be final under the Rule 54(b) standard is not an enforceable judgment. Not yet anyway.  Plus no injunction.

Any other folks with a view I’d welcome their input.

Link to the Amended Complaint. There are four claims and though the court may have sought to enter a final judgment on all the counts it appears to me at least count four that is dealing with the regulation has still to be determined. Also the injunction was not granted.

Here is the motion that I think was the basis for the relief requested.  Application for preliminary injunction

Here is the order that appears to address the Application for preliminary injunction  as summary judgment but does not address Rule 54(b)  Texas-v-US-Partial-Summary-Judgment

Added a link to the full Texas Docket.

It looks like political grandstanding.  Pro tip to the GOP judiciary. You’re now part of a Kremlin front group. You might want to ease up on the political grandstanding. Remember, no need to prove a crime to remove a judge. Just bad acts. Just sayin.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s