No. of Recommendations: 10
Everything you're posting...is contingent on being up in front of a judge with actual jurisdiction. IIRC you live in Florida. I live in Washington. You can't run to a judge in Massachusetts and ask her to issue a TRO on your behalf.
Sure I can. I can always ask.
But if I don't have a cogent argument for why that court has jurisdiction, she won't give me a TRO. Because you will be asked to demonstrate why the court has jurisdiction, the other party can raise absence of jurisdiction, and you won't get a TRO unless and until the court determines as a threshold matter that it has jurisdiction.
Might the court get that wrong? Sure - there are contested issues over jurisdiction, just like any other point of law. And sometimes that point of law - like any other point of law - gets found by a later court to have been wrongly decided. This was not an open-and-shut case on the jurisdictional point, BTW - Boasberg's order was upheld by the Circuit Court, and the SCOTUS decision on the point was 5-4. So not really analogous to running off and finding a state that obviously lacks jurisdiction.
Regardless, you still have to obey the order while it's in effect. Again, that's the whole point of the TRO - while disputed issues are being worked out, the parties are required to obey orders that the judge may issue to keep the status quo from changing to the irrevocable detriment of another party. That doesn't just apply to disputes over the substantive law, but any matter raised in the case - notice, service, jurisdiction, venue, statutes of limitations, anything. When a judge gives you an order in a case, you have to obey it even if you think it's wrong. You have to obey it even if an appellate court is going to determine that it is wrong, because until that appellate court does overturn it the order is still in effect.
There's no "bomb" that the point on which it was overturned was jurisdictional rather than substantive. You have to follow court orders, even if you think they're wrong, and even if the point that you think they're wrong about is procedural rather than substantive.
