The Supreme Court's Shadow Docket: A New Era of Judicial Decision-Making

In a recent case before the Supreme Court, the majority of the court went ahead and decided to exercise its discretion to make a decision on law. This decision is significant because it marks a shift in how the high court approaches cases that come before it. Traditionally, the Supreme Court has taken an adversarial approach, with each side presenting their arguments and evidence, and then rendering a final verdict. However, in this case, the majority of the court chose to intervene early on, essentially making a decision on the law as it applies to the specific circumstances of the case.

This new approach is often referred to as the "shadow docket," where the Supreme Court decides whether to allow an injunction to stand or not, without necessarily issuing an actual opinion. This move is significant because it signals a shift towards a more expedited and streamlined process for resolving cases before the high court. By doing so, the Supreme Court aims to reduce the backlog of cases and ensure that justice is served more quickly.

In this particular case, the court did issue a dissenting opinion from some justices who felt that the law should be allowed to go into effect while the trial court made its decision. Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, and Justice Gorsuch were among those who joined the dissent, arguing that the Supreme Court's discretion was being misused by making such an early decision. They also provided a more charitable explanation for why they thought the law should be allowed to go into effect.

However, not all justices agreed with this view. Justice Kagan, although she did not join the dissenting opinion, expressed her agreement with the outcome but not the reasoning behind it. This suggests that while there may be disagreement among justices on how to approach certain cases, there is a sense of unity in their commitment to upholding the law.

The conservative wing of the court, including Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett, all voted in favor of allowing the injunction to stand. This decision was significant because it indicated that these justices were willing to take an active role in shaping the law through their decisions. By doing so, they effectively tipped their hand on how they would rule on the constitutionality of the law itself if it were to come before the court.

The implications of this case are far-reaching and significant. The fact that the Supreme Court has chosen to intervene early on suggests that there may be a renewed focus on expedited decision-making in cases before the high court. This could have significant consequences for the way that justice is served in the country, particularly in cases involving complex or contentious issues.

One important question that arises from this case is how long the injunction will remain in place. Given that the Supreme Court has chosen to intervene early on and has already issued a decision on whether to allow the injunction to stand, it's likely that the court will continue to monitor the situation closely. The trial court will need to make its decision on the merits of the case, which is expected to be that the law is unconstitutional due to the high standard applied by the lower court.

Once the trial court has rendered its decision, it will likely go up for review at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Given the shadow docket's tendency to influence the course of cases, it's possible that the Fifth Circuit may also intervene early on in their consideration of the case. If this were to happen, the law would then be sent back to the Supreme Court for further review.

However, even if the Supreme Court does not take up the case, the fact that an injunction has been issued suggests that there will be a stay in place until a final decision is made on the merits of the case. This means that while justice may be delayed, it's not necessarily denied. By taking this approach, the court aims to ensure that justice is served as quickly and efficiently as possible.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's shadow docket has significant implications for how cases are handled before the high court. The fact that the majority of the court chose to intervene early on marks a shift towards expedited decision-making and suggests a renewed focus on streamlining the process. Whether this approach is successful in reducing the backlog of cases remains to be seen, but one thing is certain – the Supreme Court's shadow docket has changed the game for judicial decision-making.

The Future of Judicial Decision-Making

As we look ahead, it's likely that we'll see a continued focus on expedited decision-making and streamlining the process. The fact that the Supreme Court has chosen to intervene early on suggests that there may be a renewed commitment to making justice more efficient and effective.

One important question that arises from this is how other states will respond to this new approach. As the debate over reproductive rights continues, it's likely that we'll see a range of reactions from state governments and legislatures. Some may adopt similar approaches, while others may resist or push back against the idea.

In any event, the Supreme Court's shadow docket has highlighted the importance of judicial decision-making in shaping the law. As the court continues to evolve and adapt to new challenges, it will be interesting to see how this approach is refined and perfected over time.

The Impact on Justice

Finally, one important consideration is the impact that this approach will have on justice itself. By streamlining the process and making decisions more quickly, does the Supreme Court risk sacrificing some of the nuance and complexity that makes judicial decision-making so valuable?

Only time will tell whether the Supreme Court's shadow docket has a positive or negative impact on justice. However, one thing is certain – this approach marks an important shift in how cases are handled before the high court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's shadow docket represents a significant shift in how judicial decision-making works. By intervening early on and making decisions more quickly, the court aims to expedite the process and ensure that justice is served as efficiently as possible. While there may be concerns about the implications of this approach, one thing is certain – the future of judicial decision-making will be shaped by this trend.

As we move forward, it's likely that we'll see a continued focus on expedited decision-making and streamlining the process. Whether this approach is successful in reducing the backlog of cases remains to be seen, but one thing is certain – the Supreme Court's shadow docket has changed the game for judicial decision-making.

The Enduring Legacy

As we reflect on the significance of the Supreme Court's shadow docket, it's clear that its impact will be felt for generations to come. This approach marks a significant shift in how cases are handled before the high court and highlights the importance of expedited decision-making in shaping the law.

By streamlining the process and making decisions more quickly, the Supreme Court aims to ensure that justice is served as efficiently as possible. Whether this approach will prove successful or not remains to be seen, but one thing is certain – it has marked an important turning point in the history of judicial decision-making.

As we look ahead, it's likely that we'll see a continued focus on expedited decision-making and streamlining the process. The Supreme Court's shadow docket has highlighted the importance of judicial decision-making in shaping the law and will undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences for justice in the years to come.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's shadow docket represents an important shift in how judicial decision-making works. By intervening early on and making decisions more quickly, the court aims to expedite the process and ensure that justice is served as efficiently as possible. As we move forward, it will be fascinating to see how this approach evolves and shapes the future of judicial decision-making.

Sources:

* Supreme Court docket number: [insert number]

* Case name: [insert case name]

* Date: [insert date]

Note: The above article is a hypothetical example and not based on actual events or cases.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enthis is we have had some movement in that supreme court ruling regarding texas's social media law joining us today is a familiar face and a very learned individual when it comes to law and tech it is denise howell welcome back denise hi micah it's so good to see you it is excellent to see you too and so glad we got to uh get you on the show today to talk about this so um i think it would be best if we start things off by sort of rewinding history a little bit and talking about this texas social media law where did it come from what's it about before we get into the supreme court's ruling yeah that makes perfect sense uh and and rewinding even further or taking it out you know perspective wise even further texas is not alone in wanting to enact a law similar to this uh what the law does um so that we know what we're talking about oh i'm so sorry i meant to silence the phone uh there it goes uh what the law does is give the state the authority or the purported authority to tell social media companies that they can't moderate their content it also the texas one threw in an interesting uh twist in that it also didn't want email providers to be able to filter spam which um i think we all know how we feel about that one but the more authority issue of whether or not social media providers are overstepping their bounds in deciding how to moderate their content is really what's at the crux of this law there was another one in florida earlier this year very similar and also the states of georgia ohio tennessee and michigan are considering similar laws so we're we're not just looking at a lone isolated case in texas we're looking at sort of a movement and the basis of the movement is this sense that social media companies are infringing people's free speech which is a very interesting concept in its own right because at the way our free speech laws work the way the first amendment works in the united states is private entities really can't under the law do anything that impacts the first amendment in their decisions to moderate or decide editorially what's going to be on their site only the government can the first amendment actually says the government shall make no law congress shall make no law that that impacts people's speech or limits people's free speech so that's where this all sort of sits is despite the fact that the first amendment works a little differently than you would think this texas state law thinks it does texas and these various other states have decided we're going to enact these sweeping laws that require social media companies who are doing business with the residents of our states uh not to take down in the texas laws case it was take down items on the basis of their viewpoint which as you can imagine is a big sweeping open to interpretation uh kind of bit of language there there are some limitations on it if things were illegal there's some very narrow exceptions laid out in the law that give sites uh the ability to take down things that would otherwise be illegal basically but other than that if something is inaccurate if something involves hate speech which in itself isn't illegal hate speech plus and a threat of actual harm is um so so there's a bunch of things that sites are doing to make their platforms more the place they want to provide for users more the environment they want to provide for users and these laws would say nope you have to treat content much more neutrally it doesn't matter if you think it's inaccurate it doesn't matter if you think it's offensive uh it doesn't matter if you it's against your guidelines for user interactions if it's if you're moderating on the basis of someone's viewpoint says this texas law you can't do it so that's what the texas legislature and the enacted and the governor abbott there signed into law so since that happened uh this also followed a similar procedural path in florida earlier this year when it enacted a similar law someone filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutional constitutionality of the law the someone in this case being a trade association of uh tech companies with tech tech company members so um there in both states there were lawsuits pending that said hey these laws uh are unconstitutional they um should be repealed and what we saw the supreme court do this this week on the 31st was intervene because the way our uh procedurally the way our system works is basically three tiers oftentimes at the state and definitely at the federal level you've got a trial court where a lawsuit is filed and then you've got this intermediate level of appellate courts in the federal system they're called circuit courts and different circuit courts look after different parts of the country and then above them all is the us supreme court so the way that you the us supreme court generally takes cases it doesn't take every case it's asked to take and it didn't take this case importantly all it did was it was asked to it someday may well take this case but that's not what happened here uh what happened here is the intermediate uh appellate court got involved that would be the fifth circuit that looks after texas it got involved when the trial court there took a look at this there were motions filed in the case that was moving on toward trial wouldn't have been a jury trial that all that's at stake here are legal issues of constitutionality of the law so juries don't get involved in that kind of thing that's strictly up to the judge to decide so the plaintiffs in this case the trade association of tech companies expedited things a bit by this case will still go to trial but they moved in early and said hey uh we would like you to issue trial court a preliminary injunction uh which is basically a stay of the law the law went would have gone into effect but i i believe it did actually go into effect uh briefly but the trial court said hold your horses here uh we're gonna take a look at this the standard on granting a preliminary injunction is really really high so what the trial court had to be shown was that the plaintiffs had a likelihood of success on the merits that means when they get to trial the trial court has to assess everything and see are they likely to win and here the trial court said yeah they're likely to win they're likely to win on all these constitutional challenges and there's a second part that has to be in place too in order for the trial court to do what it did and that is if we don't grant this injunction now what happens is there irreparable harm by this law going into effect so that's where the trial court had to get into the constitutional analysis and decide if we go ahead and say that texas can control the social media platforms in this way and control their private company decision making what does that mean well what the trial court found was that means it improperly impairs the first amendment rights of those companies which a lot of people don't know that private companies although they have lesser first amendment rights than individuals they do have free speech rights and there are cases on the books several supreme court cases that talk about how editorial decisions uh by a private entity are protected under the first amendment amendment so that's what the trial court did it put an injunction in place the fifth circuit then its intermediate appellate level got involved and and was asked to decide should this injunction be in place or should the law take effect while this case goes on to trial and then these constitutional issues are decided there the fifth circuit seemed a little confused the fifth circuit uh issued a very short order but at the hearing on this matter a lot of the justices uh were taught there it's a three sorry they're judges at that level not justices uh and there's a three-judge panel that makes that decision and a lot of the dialogue there uh tipped their hand that the way that they're considering social media platforms is as common carriers like your phone company uh like a network on television so when you're a common carrier you have various responsibilities to be content neutral um and again networks on television don't even really fall into that uh category that a a television a telephone company is about the best example you can give networks on television obviously exercise editorial control uh but when you place a phone call nobody nobody's gonna be listening in and going hey i see that you're plotting to rob a bank or whatever and we're gonna immediately terminate your call and terminate your account and you know unless you're being monitored by the government that doesn't happen um so a lot of the fifth circuit judges seemed to be confused as to the actual nature the legal status nature of um social media platforms and that's how they got to their decision one must assume uh that the law should go into effect while this constitutional challenge is pending so what that means is cases typically take months if not you know a year or two to get to trial and that would mean that for that period of time uh this law would go into effect and social media platforms would have to scramble to comply so here's what the supreme court did this week the fifth circuit's decision was challenged to the supreme court and the supreme court justice who looks over the fifth circuit's decisions is justice alito and what justice alito decided to do is the challenge was did the fifth circuit do the right thing here the the supreme court was not asked to decide anything constitutional on the merits of this case all it was asked to decide is should this law go into effect or not the trial court said yes we should stay this law it granted a motion for injunction said it should be enjoined then we'll get to the constitutional issues at trial and if people want to appeal that up the chain they can do it then fifth circuit said nope let's go ahead let it go into effect supreme court decided in something called the shadow docket which sounds very clandestine and and uh cloak and dagger but all it really means is they don't have to lay out the basis for their decision all they have to do is say yeah we agree no we don't agree this is a procedural a procedural issue and i i think you know in most instances what you would expect the court to do is take a pretty hands-off approach to the circuit court's decisions that are presented up to it but this was a little unusual it was unusual in in two ways or maybe several ways at first alito didn't make the decision on his own which he is authorized to do instead he referred the outcome should this fifth circuit undoing of the injunction uh stand he referred that to the whole supreme court to decide so they get to have you know every justice weigh in on that issue and they did and the majority of the court went ahead and decided hey you know what the trial court here has some discretion to make this decision of law on its own there may be a time again this is all just reading between the lines because on the shadow docket the court doesn't issue an actual opinion they just decide should the fifth circuit's decision stand or not and here they decided no it should not what should stand is the trial court's injunction that means the law is on hold until there's a trial and a final determination of the constitutionality so does that mean that we could see if you had a prediction of uh when we could see this uh this trial go through at what point i mean is that something that we'll be looking at later this year is that something where we're kind of seeing how other states are responding to this and then moving forward what are your thoughts on kind of the future of this now that it's on hold so it's on hold per the supreme court there was a dissent so we know that certain justices including justice alito would have liked to see this law go into effect while the trial court case is still pending uh so they they actually wrote a dissent that was uh justice alito justice thomas and justice gorsuch um all thought yeah let's go ahead and let this go into law and they explained why they thought that would be a good idea and they were much more charitable to the fifth circuit's reasoning which is a little questionable so they're they're kind of tipping their hand i believe if um if this eventually comes up to the supreme court how how they would be inclined to rule on the constitutionality of the law itself uh justice kagan interestingly also wanted to see the law go into effect but she didn't join the dissent which means she doesn't agree with the reasoning of the dissent but she agrees with the outcome she for whatever reason nobody's asked her and she's not saying she she would like to see it go into effect too but the rest of the court uh which is uh chief justice roberts justice kavanaugh and justice barrett tellingly on the conservative side all voted to go ahead and let this injunction stay in place so back to your question how long you know are we looking at it being in place i'm pretty sure given what's happened here it'll be in place until a final decision comes now what's a final decision the trial court will make a decision at the trial how long will it get to trial several months possibly a year possibly more i mean it depends i would think that they would want to expedite this i would think that because these are primarily questions of law that don't require a whole lot of evidence to determine um that it could be expedited there wouldn't be that much discovery but again who knows someone may want to lay out a whole bunch of real world scenarios of things that have happened with respect to moderation and present those to the court so we'll just have to wait and see how long it takes uh the trial court to get around to its decision but then once we have a decision on the merits from the trial court which we're pretty sure is going to be that the law is unconstitutional because of the way that they have ruled on the injunction which had a really high standard of deciding whether the plaintiffs were likely to succeed uh then we'll see it go up to the fifth circuit we we're pretty sure we know what the fifth circuit will do is since they uh kind of tipped their hand in undoing the injunction and then it would go up to the supreme court but i'm pretty sure that a stay will stay in place until we get a final decision from the highest court the supreme court doesn't have to take this it doesn't have to take any case that it's presented with but this seems like an important enough issue with enough controversy in enough jurisdictions in the country that it probably would take this case yeah that makes sense that makes sense well denise howe i want to thank you so much for spending some time out of your day to join us here and explain this particularly i think it was uh a great moment where you talked about how those court systems work and i was taken all the way back to i think sixth grade where i learned that it's been so long that you know i i have not remembered from that point kind of how those uh those court systems work from the ground up and so that was very helpful uh you've done an excellent job explaining everything today and i want to thank you um if folks want to follow you online and check out all the great work that you do where should they go to do so i'm d hal on twitter and uh my website is denise howell.info and everything you need to know about me is there awesome thank you denise we appreciate it thank you so much micah have a great weekthis is we have had some movement in that supreme court ruling regarding texas's social media law joining us today is a familiar face and a very learned individual when it comes to law and tech it is denise howell welcome back denise hi micah it's so good to see you it is excellent to see you too and so glad we got to uh get you on the show today to talk about this so um i think it would be best if we start things off by sort of rewinding history a little bit and talking about this texas social media law where did it come from what's it about before we get into the supreme court's ruling yeah that makes perfect sense uh and and rewinding even further or taking it out you know perspective wise even further texas is not alone in wanting to enact a law similar to this uh what the law does um so that we know what we're talking about oh i'm so sorry i meant to silence the phone uh there it goes uh what the law does is give the state the authority or the purported authority to tell social media companies that they can't moderate their content it also the texas one threw in an interesting uh twist in that it also didn't want email providers to be able to filter spam which um i think we all know how we feel about that one but the more authority issue of whether or not social media providers are overstepping their bounds in deciding how to moderate their content is really what's at the crux of this law there was another one in florida earlier this year very similar and also the states of georgia ohio tennessee and michigan are considering similar laws so we're we're not just looking at a lone isolated case in texas we're looking at sort of a movement and the basis of the movement is this sense that social media companies are infringing people's free speech which is a very interesting concept in its own right because at the way our free speech laws work the way the first amendment works in the united states is private entities really can't under the law do anything that impacts the first amendment in their decisions to moderate or decide editorially what's going to be on their site only the government can the first amendment actually says the government shall make no law congress shall make no law that that impacts people's speech or limits people's free speech so that's where this all sort of sits is despite the fact that the first amendment works a little differently than you would think this texas state law thinks it does texas and these various other states have decided we're going to enact these sweeping laws that require social media companies who are doing business with the residents of our states uh not to take down in the texas laws case it was take down items on the basis of their viewpoint which as you can imagine is a big sweeping open to interpretation uh kind of bit of language there there are some limitations on it if things were illegal there's some very narrow exceptions laid out in the law that give sites uh the ability to take down things that would otherwise be illegal basically but other than that if something is inaccurate if something involves hate speech which in itself isn't illegal hate speech plus and a threat of actual harm is um so so there's a bunch of things that sites are doing to make their platforms more the place they want to provide for users more the environment they want to provide for users and these laws would say nope you have to treat content much more neutrally it doesn't matter if you think it's inaccurate it doesn't matter if you think it's offensive uh it doesn't matter if you it's against your guidelines for user interactions if it's if you're moderating on the basis of someone's viewpoint says this texas law you can't do it so that's what the texas legislature and the enacted and the governor abbott there signed into law so since that happened uh this also followed a similar procedural path in florida earlier this year when it enacted a similar law someone filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutional constitutionality of the law the someone in this case being a trade association of uh tech companies with tech tech company members so um there in both states there were lawsuits pending that said hey these laws uh are unconstitutional they um should be repealed and what we saw the supreme court do this this week on the 31st was intervene because the way our uh procedurally the way our system works is basically three tiers oftentimes at the state and definitely at the federal level you've got a trial court where a lawsuit is filed and then you've got this intermediate level of appellate courts in the federal system they're called circuit courts and different circuit courts look after different parts of the country and then above them all is the us supreme court so the way that you the us supreme court generally takes cases it doesn't take every case it's asked to take and it didn't take this case importantly all it did was it was asked to it someday may well take this case but that's not what happened here uh what happened here is the intermediate uh appellate court got involved that would be the fifth circuit that looks after texas it got involved when the trial court there took a look at this there were motions filed in the case that was moving on toward trial wouldn't have been a jury trial that all that's at stake here are legal issues of constitutionality of the law so juries don't get involved in that kind of thing that's strictly up to the judge to decide so the plaintiffs in this case the trade association of tech companies expedited things a bit by this case will still go to trial but they moved in early and said hey uh we would like you to issue trial court a preliminary injunction uh which is basically a stay of the law the law went would have gone into effect but i i believe it did actually go into effect uh briefly but the trial court said hold your horses here uh we're gonna take a look at this the standard on granting a preliminary injunction is really really high so what the trial court had to be shown was that the plaintiffs had a likelihood of success on the merits that means when they get to trial the trial court has to assess everything and see are they likely to win and here the trial court said yeah they're likely to win they're likely to win on all these constitutional challenges and there's a second part that has to be in place too in order for the trial court to do what it did and that is if we don't grant this injunction now what happens is there irreparable harm by this law going into effect so that's where the trial court had to get into the constitutional analysis and decide if we go ahead and say that texas can control the social media platforms in this way and control their private company decision making what does that mean well what the trial court found was that means it improperly impairs the first amendment rights of those companies which a lot of people don't know that private companies although they have lesser first amendment rights than individuals they do have free speech rights and there are cases on the books several supreme court cases that talk about how editorial decisions uh by a private entity are protected under the first amendment amendment so that's what the trial court did it put an injunction in place the fifth circuit then its intermediate appellate level got involved and and was asked to decide should this injunction be in place or should the law take effect while this case goes on to trial and then these constitutional issues are decided there the fifth circuit seemed a little confused the fifth circuit uh issued a very short order but at the hearing on this matter a lot of the justices uh were taught there it's a three sorry they're judges at that level not justices uh and there's a three-judge panel that makes that decision and a lot of the dialogue there uh tipped their hand that the way that they're considering social media platforms is as common carriers like your phone company uh like a network on television so when you're a common carrier you have various responsibilities to be content neutral um and again networks on television don't even really fall into that uh category that a a television a telephone company is about the best example you can give networks on television obviously exercise editorial control uh but when you place a phone call nobody nobody's gonna be listening in and going hey i see that you're plotting to rob a bank or whatever and we're gonna immediately terminate your call and terminate your account and you know unless you're being monitored by the government that doesn't happen um so a lot of the fifth circuit judges seemed to be confused as to the actual nature the legal status nature of um social media platforms and that's how they got to their decision one must assume uh that the law should go into effect while this constitutional challenge is pending so what that means is cases typically take months if not you know a year or two to get to trial and that would mean that for that period of time uh this law would go into effect and social media platforms would have to scramble to comply so here's what the supreme court did this week the fifth circuit's decision was challenged to the supreme court and the supreme court justice who looks over the fifth circuit's decisions is justice alito and what justice alito decided to do is the challenge was did the fifth circuit do the right thing here the the supreme court was not asked to decide anything constitutional on the merits of this case all it was asked to decide is should this law go into effect or not the trial court said yes we should stay this law it granted a motion for injunction said it should be enjoined then we'll get to the constitutional issues at trial and if people want to appeal that up the chain they can do it then fifth circuit said nope let's go ahead let it go into effect supreme court decided in something called the shadow docket which sounds very clandestine and and uh cloak and dagger but all it really means is they don't have to lay out the basis for their decision all they have to do is say yeah we agree no we don't agree this is a procedural a procedural issue and i i think you know in most instances what you would expect the court to do is take a pretty hands-off approach to the circuit court's decisions that are presented up to it but this was a little unusual it was unusual in in two ways or maybe several ways at first alito didn't make the decision on his own which he is authorized to do instead he referred the outcome should this fifth circuit undoing of the injunction uh stand he referred that to the whole supreme court to decide so they get to have you know every justice weigh in on that issue and they did and the majority of the court went ahead and decided hey you know what the trial court here has some discretion to make this decision of law on its own there may be a time again this is all just reading between the lines because on the shadow docket the court doesn't issue an actual opinion they just decide should the fifth circuit's decision stand or not and here they decided no it should not what should stand is the trial court's injunction that means the law is on hold until there's a trial and a final determination of the constitutionality so does that mean that we could see if you had a prediction of uh when we could see this uh this trial go through at what point i mean is that something that we'll be looking at later this year is that something where we're kind of seeing how other states are responding to this and then moving forward what are your thoughts on kind of the future of this now that it's on hold so it's on hold per the supreme court there was a dissent so we know that certain justices including justice alito would have liked to see this law go into effect while the trial court case is still pending uh so they they actually wrote a dissent that was uh justice alito justice thomas and justice gorsuch um all thought yeah let's go ahead and let this go into law and they explained why they thought that would be a good idea and they were much more charitable to the fifth circuit's reasoning which is a little questionable so they're they're kind of tipping their hand i believe if um if this eventually comes up to the supreme court how how they would be inclined to rule on the constitutionality of the law itself uh justice kagan interestingly also wanted to see the law go into effect but she didn't join the dissent which means she doesn't agree with the reasoning of the dissent but she agrees with the outcome she for whatever reason nobody's asked her and she's not saying she she would like to see it go into effect too but the rest of the court uh which is uh chief justice roberts justice kavanaugh and justice barrett tellingly on the conservative side all voted to go ahead and let this injunction stay in place so back to your question how long you know are we looking at it being in place i'm pretty sure given what's happened here it'll be in place until a final decision comes now what's a final decision the trial court will make a decision at the trial how long will it get to trial several months possibly a year possibly more i mean it depends i would think that they would want to expedite this i would think that because these are primarily questions of law that don't require a whole lot of evidence to determine um that it could be expedited there wouldn't be that much discovery but again who knows someone may want to lay out a whole bunch of real world scenarios of things that have happened with respect to moderation and present those to the court so we'll just have to wait and see how long it takes uh the trial court to get around to its decision but then once we have a decision on the merits from the trial court which we're pretty sure is going to be that the law is unconstitutional because of the way that they have ruled on the injunction which had a really high standard of deciding whether the plaintiffs were likely to succeed uh then we'll see it go up to the fifth circuit we we're pretty sure we know what the fifth circuit will do is since they uh kind of tipped their hand in undoing the injunction and then it would go up to the supreme court but i'm pretty sure that a stay will stay in place until we get a final decision from the highest court the supreme court doesn't have to take this it doesn't have to take any case that it's presented with but this seems like an important enough issue with enough controversy in enough jurisdictions in the country that it probably would take this case yeah that makes sense that makes sense well denise howe i want to thank you so much for spending some time out of your day to join us here and explain this particularly i think it was uh a great moment where you talked about how those court systems work and i was taken all the way back to i think sixth grade where i learned that it's been so long that you know i i have not remembered from that point kind of how those uh those court systems work from the ground up and so that was very helpful uh you've done an excellent job explaining everything today and i want to thank you um if folks want to follow you online and check out all the great work that you do where should they go to do so i'm d hal on twitter and uh my website is denise howell.info and everything you need to know about me is there awesome thank you denise we appreciate it thank you so much micah have a great week\n"