Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Sunlight

(24 posts)
5. In case you're wondering . . .
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 02:03 PM
Friday

Last edited Fri Jun 12, 2026, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Removal of djt's name should still proceed despite the administration's pending appeal of the court order requiring its removal. Because the court denied the emergency request for a stay, the order remains in force and legally binding, meaning the directive to remove the name must be followed unless and until the appeals court rules otherwise.

In rejecting the administration’s request, the judge emphasized that the government had failed to meet a key requirement for emergency relief, writing:

For the detailed reasons laid out in the Court’s ruling, Defendants have not ‘made a strong showing that [they] are likely to succeed on the merits.’

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»BREAKING: Judge keeps ord...»Reply #5