Bragg v. Jordan
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-03032
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bragg v. Jordan, Judge Vyskocil denied Bragg’s motion to stay the earlier order denying his temporary restraining order.
The ruling directly affected Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., who sought the stay, and left in place the earlier order denying his request for a temporary restraining order. The defendants were Jim Jordan, the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives, and Mark F. Pomerantz.
What happened
In Bragg v. Jordan, Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. asked the court to pause its earlier order denying his request for a temporary restraining order. The defendants are Jim Jordan, the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives, and Mark F. Pomerantz.
The court explained that deciding whether to pause an order requires considering the applicant’s likelihood of success, possible irreparable harm without a stay, harm to other interested parties, and the public interest. The court said the first two factors were most important here.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil found that Bragg was not likely to succeed on the merits of any appeal and would not suffer irreparable harm without a stay. The court therefore denied the motion for a stay and asked the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry 46.
The detailed version
- Bragg v. Jordan · No. 1:23-cv-03032
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 19, 2023
Background
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., in his official capacity as District Attorney for New York County, filed a letter motion seeking a stay, meaning a pause, of the court’s Opinion and Order denying his request for a temporary restraining order. The motion concerned the court’s earlier ruling at ECF No. 44. The defendants are Jim Jordan, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives, and Mark F. Pomerantz.
Legal standard
The court stated that a stay requires consideration of four factors: whether the applicant is likely to succeed on the merits; whether the applicant will suffer irreparable injury without a stay; whether the stay would substantially injure other interested parties; and where the public interest lies. The court noted that the first two factors are the most important.
Ruling
For the reasons discussed in the earlier Opinion and Order, the court found that Bragg was not likely to succeed on the merits of any appeal and would not be irreparably injured without a stay. The court therefore denied the motion for a stay. It also requested that the Clerk of Court terminate docket entry 46.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.