Succession of Hubee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that “even if” the plaintiffs’ claims against the 2017 Presidential Memorandum were “moot,” the court would still enjoin implementation of the Mattis policy
• addressing all the preliminary injunction factors: “the merits,” “irreparable injury,” “the balance of equities,” and the “public interest”
• “To avoid any possible need for clarification, the Court states expressly: enforcing the Mattis Implementation Plan would violate the Court’s October 30, 2017 preliminary injunction.”
• “[T]he District Court erred in finding that the Mattis Plan was a blanket transgender ban.”
• \[T]he 'stigmatic' aspects of Plaintiffs' injuries were ... alone sufficient to confer standing[.]\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).