This is a good formulation. I'll merely add that, even if Judge Hendrix failed to rule on the preliminary injunction for the best reason—because he was performing life-saving surgery on a dying infant or taking a sick loved one to the ER while his cell was broken—the failure to rule *still* have been an "effective denial" of the motion. …
This is a good formulation. I'll merely add that, even if Judge Hendrix failed to rule on the preliminary injunction for the best reason—because he was performing life-saving surgery on a dying infant or taking a sick loved one to the ER while his cell was broken—the failure to rule *still* have been an "effective denial" of the motion. As I conceptualize it, the "constructive denial" finding is not so much viewed from the perspective of the judge, as Judge Ho and J. Alito seem to think, but from the perspective of the party seeking the injunction. Sometimes the two aligned, but I don't see why they'd have to. Am I thinking about this wrong? Because I've been shocked by the weirdly personal affront so many have taken to the issuance of plaintiff-protective emergency relief under extraordinary circumstances.
This is a good formulation. I'll merely add that, even if Judge Hendrix failed to rule on the preliminary injunction for the best reason—because he was performing life-saving surgery on a dying infant or taking a sick loved one to the ER while his cell was broken—the failure to rule *still* have been an "effective denial" of the motion. As I conceptualize it, the "constructive denial" finding is not so much viewed from the perspective of the judge, as Judge Ho and J. Alito seem to think, but from the perspective of the party seeking the injunction. Sometimes the two aligned, but I don't see why they'd have to. Am I thinking about this wrong? Because I've been shocked by the weirdly personal affront so many have taken to the issuance of plaintiff-protective emergency relief under extraordinary circumstances.