[EagleUSA]

“Likely”??

[Flash Bazbeaux]

“Likely?”

The article gives no indication of the procedural posture of the case, so the statement “likely” is meaningless.

IF someone had sued to enjoin enforcement of the law pending a full trial, then “likely unconstitutional” might be a basis for suspending the law until a final determination could be made. In which case “likely” is “good enough for now.” It gets the job done for now.

But the article provides no context. Even a judge who KNOWS that a law is SLAM DUNK unconstitional is not going to go any further than “likely” when that is all that is needed to suspend it pending further legal action.

Of course we have no way of knowing if that is what was happening based on this article.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The decision is here. The "likely" language is because the California AG wanted the lawsuit challenging the waiting period law thrown out without a trial. The judge denied that motion, but will give the AG a chance at trial to prove that the law is constitutional.