You seem to “know” so many things that are not true. I’ll teach you a couple of things if you are willing to keep an open mind.
A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy” and can only be granted in extreme cases.
The Courts must balance 4 factors:
1. The likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits at the final hearing;
2. The extent to which the plaintiffs are being irreparably harmed by the conduct complained of;
3. The extent to which the defendants will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is issued; and
4. The public interest.
Preliminary injunctions are not granted in most cases.
As for the second claim that you make, in CLS v Hastings, Judge Sykes got the law correct. She adhered to an original understanding of the Constitution.
That case got appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed her decision. So, what you seem to think was a slam dunk, was reversed and overturned because Kennedy sided with four liberals on the court.
The result would have been different with an originalist on the Court.
So it is actually pretty impressive that Judge Sykes adhered to an original understanding of the Constitution when the Supreme Court didn’t do so on appeal.
Please. I have obtained dozens of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.
Think about what you wrote. The injunction is not granted unless the movant is likely to succeed at trial on the merits. Meaning that the “substantive” part of the case is not close. Its an easy call for the judge. Like I said.
As for the Christian Legal Society v. Walker case, I do not see the Supreme Court reversal your claim.