4/ .
@FranceskAlbs As you are a non-lawyer, I want to carefully explain to you what happened.
Here is the new Court Order (per curiam) and statement by Circuit Judge Katsas joined by Circuit Judge Henderson:
storage.courtlistener.com/re…
When the Appeals Court first restored the sanctions on May 22, it did so through a temporary administrative stay. (See here:
x.com/HillelNeuer/status/205…)
This time is different. The court considered the government's emergency motion, your opposition, the government's reply, a motion for leave to file a surreply, the surreply itself, and amicus submissions, before ruling.
After full briefing, the court concluded that Secretary Rubio satisfied the demanding standard for a stay pending appeal and allowed the sanctions to remain in force throughout the case.
Then came the real blow. Judges Katsas and Henderson signaled that your central First Amendment theory may fail altogether because you are a foreign national acting outside the United States.
That is not a final ruling on the merits. But after extensive litigation and full adversarial briefing, it is a powerful indication that the appellate court is deeply skeptical of the legal foundation of your case.
Ms. Albanese, I want to be very clear. When two U.S. federal appellate court judges begin questioning whether the constitutional right on which your lawsuit depends applies to you at all, you have a much bigger problem than a temporary loss. You have a problem with the theory of your entire case.