On 2/6/2017 2:01 PM, Yair Rand wrote:
I would still like confirmation of whether it was in fact an urgent
situation, however.
The legal posture of the case (temporary restraining order issued prior
to hearing on a preliminary injunction) makes it urgent. In order to
participate meaningfully in the case at this point, it was necessary to
join the brief now. If you've been following events, we're talking about
a ruling that was issued within a week after the executive order came
out, which is incredibly swift action for the courts. It's my
understanding that the appeal could be decided this week, potentially as
early as Tuesday.
This is not a trial where the parties might take months gathering their
evidence before presenting it to the judge and/or jury. Given that the
circumstances can involve people detained at airport customs who might
be involuntarily put on a plane back to their point of origin at any
moment, the legal system's urgency is appropriate to the situation.
As an aside, people focused more on the general policy issues as opposed
to the facts of particular cases may wonder what makes it urgent (for
Wikimedia) when we're talking about decisions that are "temporary" or
"preliminary" in nature. But as those experienced in this area know,
despite such designations these rulings have a powerful tendency to
create facts on the ground in a way that they can easily end up
determining the final outcome as well.
--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
