Surprise?

On Friday, Federal Judge Timothy Kelly of the District Court for the D.C. Circuit granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) restoring CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s White House press pass. Judge Kelly was both a Trump appointee and a member of the Federalist Society. TRO’s are governed by Rule 65 (b) under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and under state law when brought in state court. If the court finds that a party will suffer irreparable harm unless the court intervenes, the court will enter an order to protect the moving party. A TRO is for a limited period of time until the issue in controversy can be resolved. TRO’s may be extended. In short, it is preliminary in nature and subject to review. People who claim or view the granting of a TRO as a victory may not fully understand what a TRO is and the limitations of such an order. Jim Acosta will be back in the press room at the White House. The TRO doesn’t address much beyond that. Does the president have to recognize Acosta? Does the president have to answer questions from Acosta? Does a reporter have to follow rules of decorum? The parties will probably reach some kind of accommodation, making extended litigation unnecessary. Lost in the conversations about the TRO is the status of the judge. Some pundits seem to suggest that Judge Kelly’s ruling is disloyal to the president that appointed him. Some suggest that he has betrayed his Federalist Society roots. When Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote for the Affordable Care Act, some conservatives were irate. Both Chief Justice Roberts and Judge Kelly took an oath to support and protect the Constitution. Why are people surprised when they follow the law and uphold the Constitution? In the United States Supreme Court, some decisions are by a 9-0 vote, some by a 5-4 and others are in between. Regardless of the vote totals, the decision of the Court is always based on the law. People forget that conservative icon Antonin Scalia and liberal legend Ruth Bader Ginsburg were the best of friends in spite of being on opposite ends of multiple court decisions. Maybe the talking heads fomenting anger and divisiveness can look to the Court, where disputes are resolved rather than created.