Preliminary Injunction

Judge Engelmayer today granted a motion for a preliminary injunction by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (the “ADFI”), a pro-Israel lobbying group, against the New York City MTA, enjoining application of the MTA’s standards for acceptable advertising. The ADFI had submitted an advertisement to run on the backs of city buses that read: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. / Support Israel / Defeat Jihad.” The MTA rejected the ad, as in violation of its policy against ads that are demeaning of “an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.”
Continue Reading Judge Engelmayer Preliminarily Enjoins MTA’s Advertising Policy on First Amendment Grounds

In an opinion issued today, Judge Nathan denied the motion of several major broadcast television networks to enjoin Barry Diller-backed start-up Aereo from offering its Internet television service to subscribers. This decision follows an expedited spate of briefing and a two-day hearing, which the SDNY Blog has covered in previous posts. Judge Nathan’s decision, which goes deep into the weeds of the various technologies involved in Aereo’s offerings, turns on the applicability of the Second Circuit’s Cablevision decision, which held that a traditional DVR system did not infringe a copyright owner’s public performance rights under the Copyright Act. Judge Nathan summarized each side’s version of the applicability of Cablevision to Aereo’s product:
Continue Reading Judge Nathan Denies TV Networks’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction Against Aereo

In separate filings today, both sides in the broadcast television networks’ action to preliminarily enjoin the Aereo Internet television service (which we have blogged about on several occasions) put forth competing proposed findings of fact and law to Judge Nathan, as the parties await the Court’s ruling after a two-day preliminary injunction hearing in late-May. The parties offered starkly contrasting descriptions of the Aereo product. Which version of the parties’ characterization of the Aereo service Judge Nathan accepts will likely go a long way to determining whether the Aereo service violates the Copyright Act or not, and thus whether the company’s business can survive.
Continue Reading Parties Submit Dueling Proposed Findings of Fact and Law in Aereo Preliminary Injunction Matter

As we reported last month, the government moved Judge Forrest to reconsider her order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of a federal law authorizing the government to detain U.S. citizens who provide “substantial support” for Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or their “associated forces.” In a footnote to its motion for reconsideration, the government stated its view as to the scope of the injunction — it applied only to the specific plaintiffs in the case, and did not enjoin enforcement of the law generally. At a telephonic hearing on June 1, Judge Forrest indicated that she did not agree with the government’s reading of the order, and today she issued a written order so as to “leave no doubt as to that issue.” Contrary to the government’s contention, Judge Forrest held that, because the plaintiffs’ challenge was to a law that was facially vague and violated their constitutional rights, the government is enjoined from enforcing the law against anyone.
Continue Reading Judge Forrest “Leaves No Doubt” that Government Is Enjoined from Enforcing Indefinite Detention Law Against Anyone