[KellyRae]

Well thought out post, but I respectfully disagree.

I identified the "claim" you which you analyzed and carefully examined by way of example. The new federal law contemplated the possibility that the Schindlers' could bring an action which asserted any possible violations of her rights under the Constitution or United States law. Some such actions would conceivably (perhaps likely) involve matters which were not, in fact, litigated at any time at the federal level (granted, prevailing would be unlikely, but the court should work on the assumption that such a claim could be brought as the new law provided for such a right). In fact, one would have to assume such would be the case if you operate on the presumption that the law was meant to have a purpose. It's hard to see how a court can "know" that there are no such actions which the Schindlers' would pursue pursuant to the new act.

The absence of precedent on point, which, as you correctly point out, can't really exist because of the particularly unique nature of this case, only serves to illustrate that there is, as some would say "no controlling legal authority" and, as such, there was no requirement that the judges rule as they did - but by doing so, they rendered the federal law meaningless.

As regards the harm in granting the injunction you raise a fair point, but were the Schindler's successful on the merits (as unlikely as that is, as you correctly point out), the harm by not granting the injunctive relief is irreversible. Which is why I have a problem with the ruling and I do not think the standard for a TRO is appropriate here or, for that matter, in capital cases generally (notwithstanding the slew of precedent that yourself as well as others have presented).