"Stinging Blow"?

All-Republican Texas Supreme Court delivers stinging blow to Greg Abbott's war on mask mandateshttps://t.co/jfzyjjpGLR

— Raw Story (@RawStory) August 20, 2021

Or a "technicality"?

The ruling cites only to Rule 52.3(e) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Note the second sentence:https://t.co/0dwV6plYSp pic.twitter.com/N2xSzjEUDs

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) August 19, 2021

All the Supreme Court actually said was "Stop trying to jump rank." Now, the Court granted the application for mandamus against a TRO issued in Dallas County, without the intermediate appeal to the Court of Appeals. What was different this time is anybody's guess, but mine is the Court (being elected judges, hence politicians) is aware of the crisis in the state.

“We are entering the worst surge in sheer numbers,” said Dr. Mark Casanova, a palliative care specialist in Dallas and a member of the Texas Medical Association’s COVID-19 Task Force. “This is the fourth round of what should have been a three-round fight." https://t.co/GsOUFhzdnJ

— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) August 19, 2021

In an effort to keep Texas hospitals from being overwhelmed by coronavirus patients, the state is deploying thousands more relief medical workers and opening additional COVID-19 antibody infusion centers. https://t.co/zb394o2v4W

— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) August 19, 2021

Several rural school districts in Texas have temporarily closed some or all of their campuses because of the pandemic. https://t.co/dXylDkcLIP

— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) August 19, 2021

And the Justices are beginning to think maybe they should rule on these cases from the question of facts, not just the technicalities (literally this time) of the grounds for issuing a TRO.

Because if there's a bigger difference between this and what they did for that Dallas TRO, I don't see it.  And I don't think Paxton's office does either; but I suspect they see this as a shot across their bow, that from now on the Court won't automatically be on the side of the governor and the AG.

Here's hoping, anyway.

I will note that the professor disagrees with me:

Yeah, but more than that, I think it’s a thinly veiled message from the Court to the AG about not taking things for granted. The State didn’t bother to offer a reason for bypassing the Court of Appeals. Not hard to see why that might not sit well — even with sympathetic Justices.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) August 20, 2021

But especially in this day of computers, why didn't the AG just cut 'n' paste the previous application for mandamus out of Dallas county? Vladek reads this as the Court literally referring to the letter of Rule 52.3(e). I think there's room for consideration that the court is saying the reason the AG gave this time was no longer good enough (since, again, they could just cut 'n' paste the reason from the last application, which worked. One thing lawyers never do is change dicks in mid-screw, as the old Nixon re-election slogan ran. And you see again that law professors aren't that proficient in the practice of law.  Lawyers will reuse language for centuries after its use has run out, just so they aren't the one who runs afoul of a court noticing this isn't "how we've always done it."  When a court tells you what you did last time doesn't work anymore, it's a Pretty Big Deal.)  So I think there's a bit more here, if not quite a "major blow."