The U.S. sent California a list of people (about 22k) the U.S. says are ineligible to vote but remain on the California voter roles; it asked for an injunction ordering the state to check its voter roles to remove these (and presumably other) names. The U.S. moved for a TRO prohibiting California from proceeding with vote counting until it checks on these voters; it requested an expedited ruling. The court ordered briefing and a hearing by October 27 (early next week), given the complicated nature of the case and the attempted intervention of voting-rights groups.
The U.S. has appealed the court's refusal to immediately rule on the TRO, arguing that the refusal to rule expeditiously constitutes constructive denial of the TRO. Note two big issues here. First, even accepting the government's constructive-denial argument, denial (constructive or otherwise) of an ex parte TRO is not ordinarily appealable. This case might test if anything remains of the TRO/PI distinction for § 1292(a) purposes. Second, the traditional method for challenging district court inaction has been mandamus, with the high standard it carries. You can see why the U.S. would try something less within the court of appeals' discretion.
