eli5 What does it mean when a court “temporary blocks” a law, an agenda, etc. and what’s the purpose of it?
In: 23
The legal process can take a while to play out. Both sides have to prepare their cases, then court proceedings, then the judge has to issue a ruling, etc. But what happens while the processis ongoing? This is where one side will petition the court to block a law temporarily while the legal process plays out. The judge will basically ask the question “how much harm will be made if the law is enacted and then struck down?” to determine what it’s status will be in the interim.
It’s like a hearing not a trial. The court finds cause that the law or regulation is not legal under that constitution, or is not in companies with existing law so it puts a hold on it. This gives both sides a chance to get ready to go to trial to fully argue their case with all evidence.
The full trial takes a lot of time to prepare, the initial hearing is a lot faster.
Even if the judge judge grant the temporary injunction the peoe.seekong it can still file their suit, but the difference is that the law or regulation goes into effect.
It means a judge declared that a piece of law does not apply and cannot be enforced.
Let’s say some legislator passed a law that prohibited owning or riding red bicycles, and set the penalty for contrevening the law as 20 years in prison. Suddeny, every red bicycle owner is committing a crime. If a red bicycle ower petitions a court (by filing a lawsuit which seeks a specific remedy), after hearing evidence from both sides a judge may set aside this law (declare that it does not apply) or dismiss the lawsuit (sorry, better luck next time).
If the judge grants the remedy sought by the red bicycle owner (that this law be set aside) now, at the moment the judge’s gavel strikes, red bicycles are okay again, and their owners are no longer unapprehended criminals.
Through just his words, the judge undoes legislation effected by
a legitimate democratically elected legislative body.
The key is that democratic nations generally settle on three branches of government, each intended to check the power of the other two.
Legislative: elected officials create laws which citizens must obey.
Judiciary: unelected, but wholly experienced and competent lawyers are assigned the power to unilaterally resolve disputes about the law by rendering judgements on petitions brought to their court, which may include compensation, punishment, or commands (i.e. this particular law is null and void). The judiciary includes all lawyers permitted to practice in a particular juristiction, who act as officers if the court, working to uphold principles of law.
Executive: these people enforce, or execute (make real) the law. These are police, sherrifs, prisons, and sometimes the military. Their job is to investigate potential violations of law, apprehend people who allegedly break the law so the court can determine the facts and render judgement, and effect punishment.
No one branch of government can escape being subject to one or both of the others.
If a court is set to debate something which is expected to take a long time and they are afraid that there will be more damage being done while the court is being held then they can order a temporary suspension until the court have come back with a decision. Say for example that a court is to try if capital punishment is legal or not. It would be a real shame if while the trial was held there were still people subject to capital punishment, a possible crime in itself depending on the outcome of the trial. So the court can say that while the trial is being held until the court have a decision people should act as if capital punishment was illegal.
They haven’t decided yet but they think it’s worth looking into so the law is on hold until they decide whether it’s allowed or not.
A “temporary block” is called a preliminary injunction. It’s preliminary because it happens before the trial. It’s an injunction because the person, company, or government being sued is blocked from doing something. This doesn’t happen in most trials. Ordinarily, nothing is decided until the court hears the full case and the judge or jury decides the truth of the matter.
The purpose is to prevent irreparable harm to the person suing. Something like your neighbor “borrowing” your lawnmower for weeks at a time is repairable. After the trial, the judge forces them to give it back and awards some money in damages. There’s no need to take extraordinary steps before trial.
Now consider something more time sensitive like the recent abortion restrictions. Pregnant people sue and ask for a preliminary injunction to prevent the government from outlawing the medical procedure. If forced to wait until the end of the trial, the case is moot. There will be a child. No amount of money can turn back the clock. Their life will be irrevocably changed.
If the person suing can show an irreparable level of harm, then the judge looks at the merits of the case. If the initial argument looks legally strong enough, the judge will grant the injunction. The wheels of justice turn slowly, and this lets the plaintiff get some relief while they do.
Latest Answers