Judge Timothy Kelly (D.D.C.) issued a TRO against the White House stripping three news outlets of press credentials. The court resolves the case on due process grounds--the failure to provide notice prior to taking away the credential.
The relevant points for our purposes come on pp 7-8.
First, the court declines to stay the TRO, pointing out that 1) TROs are not "generally unappealable" and 2) the whole point of a TRO is to immediately-but-temporarily preserve the status quo, a purpose undermined by a stay. As to # 1, courts of appeals have been allowing appeals of TROs in Trump-related litigation, albeit without explanation or applying the established criteria for treating a TRO as a PI. Judge Kelly emphasizes the 14-day duration, highlighting the key feature that makes something a TRO rather than a PI.
Second, FRCP 65(c) requires the court to impose a bond on the plaintiff obtaining the injunction--some money to cover the costs the defendant's suffer from a wrongly issued injunction. This was looming as in issue in the antitrust litigation over the Paramount merger, where Paramount was seeking a bond in the billions of dollars. In constitutional cases such as this one, courts tend to impose nominal bonds of $ 1, since the government's cost (inability to enforce a law or policy for a time) are not monetized. Judge Kelly did that here.
But note that this was a point of discussion in 2025, where DOJ was threatening to seek substantial bonds in constitutional cases. Many feared this would chill constitutional litigants and lawyers, who do not have the funds to post substantial bonds, from bringing litigation.
Update: Prof. Vladeck offers some thoughts on how the distinction between TRO and PI has collapsed, especially around stays and appealability.
