I Feel Strangely Vindicated

Trump's attempt to keep January 6 documents away from Congress crashes and burns in court -- againhttps://t.co/XJJc5v0ekr

— Raw Story (@RawStory) November 11, 2021

Plaintiff characterizes his motion as a Rule 62 motion “seeking . . . to preserve the status quo.” Pl. Renewed Mot. at 1. However, it is clear from the caption and the substance of Plaintiff’s arguments that he again seeks injunctive relief, rather than a stay of this court’s November 9 order. A stay would not give Plaintiff the relief he seeks—preventing the transmission of documents from NARA to the House Select Committee—as the status quo in this case is that NARA will disclose documents on November 12, “absent any intervening court order.” Pl. Mot., Ex. 7. Accordingly, the court will analyze Plaintiff’s motion as one seeking injunctive relief, rather than a stay.

Unsurprisingly, the trial court declined to give plaintiffs on appeal what was denied after a hearing.  So now I suppose they can go to the D.C. court, but absent a really compelling argument, “WE’RE ON A DEADLINE HERE!” is not grounds for an injunction at any level of the courts.  Is a stunning new argument forthcoming?

 In his renewed motion, despite the fact that he requests essentially the same relief as in his original preliminary injunction motion, Plaintiff has not advanced any new facts or arguments that persuade the court to reconsider its November 9, 2021, Order. The court’s analysis previously rejecting Plaintiff’s requested relief is thus equally applicable here: Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claims or suffer irreparable harm, and a balance of the equities and public interest bear against granting his requested relief. Id. Nor is Plaintiff entitled to injunctive relief under the “serious legal question” doctrine.

Yeah, I don’t think so.