IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
NEVPLAYSGAMES, ET AL, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-743
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RULING
v.
LARGETITANIC2, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR.
RULING ON MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The plaintiff through his counsel petitioned for a preliminary injunction pending
disposition of the case, the State representing the Governor (hereinafter ‘defendant’) opposed
such motion and therefore the court evaluates the legal precedent for granting such a motion
throughout this ruling.
There is a four (4) pronged test of which the United States Supreme Court has held to be
necessary in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) stating that
there are prerequisites that plaintiff must fulfill if the motion is to be granted:
“(1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that they are likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of
equities tip in their favor; and (4) that an injunction is of the public's interest.”
The defendant contends that the preliminary injunction does not meet these pronged
requirements but the Court disagrees. The plaintiff has demonstrated they are likely to succeed
on the merits through sound legal arguments, the delegatory power to define given to the
Governor puts them subjectively in the way of possible injury, the balance of equities do tip in
their favor and that the public interest does in fact support granting an injunction to prevent
possible further injury. While it is clear that preliminary injunctions are “an extraordinary
remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such
relief”1 not as of right, the Court finds that these prerequisites are fulfilled adequately. See also
Munaf v. Geren, 553 U. S. 674 (2008).
1 Ibid at 22
Defendant also cites the substantial state interest in protecting its domestic security and
its citizens wellbeing through the restrictions placed through this Act. While this may be the case
there must be an analytical standard of review (e.g. strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny etc) that
will take place later in trial and it is therefore not a preliminary issue. Under Section 3.1 of the
Act the Governor is given a considerable ability to give effect to the law through enacting
definitions, some would arguably call this an engagement in the creation of ‘secondary
legislation’. Nonetheless, this presents an issue for trial and while under the current definitions
provided by the Governor in his Order2 there is a likelihood for injury as a result of this
legislative flexibility.
It should further not be surprising that the courts generally favor liberally granting
preliminary injunctions as they have the purpose of preserving the relative positions of the
parties until a trial on the merits can be held. Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (per
curiam) (slip op. at 5), University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U. S. 390, 395 (1981). As a result,
the Court finds it “necessary or appropriate in aid of the Court’s jurisdiction” to issue this
injunction to preserve the state of affairs until the disposition of this case. See Ohio Citizens for
Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U.S. 1312 (1986) (Scalia, J., in chambers) (citations and
alterations omitted).
CONCLUSION
The Court, after careful review of all the arguments presented, thereby GRANTS the
motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the Modified Sedition Act as
challenged and referred to in the above captioned case pending disposition of the matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: DECEMBER 14, 2022
__________________________________
HON. ALEX J. CABOT
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
2 Executive Order 3-01 (2022)
