Summary of Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Rokita:
Indiana has requested a stay on the preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of Ind. Code § 24-4-23, which aims to restrict minors’ access to certain sexual materials on websites. The statute in question is similar to one in Texas, which has been deemed valid by the Fifth Circuit. Despite Free Speech Coalition, Inc.’s plea to the Supreme Court to halt the enforcement of the Texas statute, the application was denied, allowing the Texas law to be enforced. In light of this, Indiana’s request for a stay has been granted until the Supreme Court reaches a decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
While Judge Ilana Rovner agrees with the decision to defer briefing, she dissents on the stay of the trial court injunction. She argues that the status quo should be maintained, as altering it could unfairly burden the plaintiffs, especially since the Texas statute was already in effect when the Supreme Court denied a stay. Rovner emphasizes the importance of considering the merits of a stay motion before granting it, rather than simply following the Supreme Court’s summary denial.
It is a legally sound approach to defer to the Supreme Court’s decision in considering the underlying issue at hand. Therefore, if we opt not to review the motion on its merits, the most appropriate course of action would be to pause proceedings until the Supreme Court reaches a decision, as we have done in similar situations where a pending Supreme Court case could be decisive. Simply granting a stay and disrupting the current state of affairs, allowing an unconstitutional statute to go into effect without requiring the moving party to meet any burden of proof, should not be considered as an option.
Source link
