Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge is married to one of the parties in the suit's employees so is that going to be a problem?

It's only a problem if you're A Major A**

or according to VA law. But whateves.

What VA law forbids this? Serious question.

https://www.vacourts.gov/courts/scv/canons_of_judicial_conduct.pdf

D. 1. g. i-iii.

I don't care b/c we're immunocompromised so we're masked regardless. Just don't like hypocrisy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church City is part of the lawsuit too.

Honest question, why did Falls Church City participate in the law suit if the school board decided to go mask optional on Feb 14?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge is married to one of the parties in the suit's employees so is that going to be a problem?

It's only a problem if you're A Major A**

or according to VA law. But whateves.

What VA law forbids this? Serious question.

Anonymous wrote:The school districts have higher authority than the governor's EO on mask mandates.

Just decided.

Anonymous wrote:The school districts have higher authority than the governor's EO on mask mandates.

Just decided.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge is married to one of the parties in the suit's employees so is that going to be a problem?

It's only a problem if you're A Major A**

or according to VA law. But whateves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge is married to one of the parties in the suit's employees so is that going to be a problem?

It's only a problem if you're A Major A**

or according to VA law. But whateves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church City is part of the lawsuit too.

Honest question, why did Falls Church City participate in the law suit if the school board decided to go mask optional on Feb 14?

Probably because they didn’t want to be forced to go mask optional before then, and want the option to go back to full masking if we have another spike.

Yep. A lot of this was about local jurisdictions and school boards retaining control over decision-making for their districts.

It’s the absolute correct legal decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge is married to one of the parties in the suit's employees so is that going to be a problem?

It's only a problem if you're A Major A**

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church City is part of the lawsuit too.

Honest question, why did Falls Church City participate in the law suit if the school board decided to go mask optional on Feb 14?

Probably because they didn’t want to be forced to go mask optional before then, and want the option to go back to full masking if we have another spike.

Anonymous wrote:Horraay!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church City is part of the lawsuit too.

Honest question, why did Falls Church City participate in the law suit if the school board decided to go mask optional on Feb 14?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church City is part of the lawsuit too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"injuction until legal process plays out"....so who did this arlington judge punt to? being a woman myself I wish she had the balls to rule on this -even if I was in disagreement..wimpy lib

She didn’t punt to anyone. This hearing was about the motions for temporary injunction filed by both sides. As the name would suggest, it is a temporary measure put into place while the parties fully litigate the issue. The ruling is based in part of a finding that the school systems are likely to prevail in the end, but less as he’s open the possibility that once the parties have had a chance to fully brief the issues, the ultimate outcome could be different.

The judge did exactly what she was supposed to do. You just don’t understand the legal process.

OK fair enough, so in what Court will the legal process play out? what is the next step?

The case stays in the same court and the regular process in the legal system will play out—discovery, motions, trial, etc.

A temporary injunction means the status quo (in this case mask mandates in these local districts) stays in place while the case reaches a final conclusion.

Often when a party loses at the preliminary injunction stage, that is a preview to the fact that they may ultimately have a losing argument and could end up settling. Not sure exactly what that would look like or what Youngkin’s next move will be.

Says a lot that one of his first acts in office was already struck down by the courts this quickly.

thanks!
The Arlington Court needs to act fast though, they cant keep the temp injuction for months as the GOV will want it moved to the next higher court for an appeal -correct?

Nope. It will take as long as it takes. And the TRO will remain in place while it does. It’s why we have TROs. Because sometimes it takes a year or two to get through discovery and to a decision.

In federal courts, TROs are not typically appealable, but PIs are. This is a TRO in state court. Does anyone know whether this is immediately appealable? There aren’t really any factual disputes, so I would imagine an appeal would provide for the most expeditious resolution one way or another, but I don’t know the state court procedure here. Can any Virginia procedural folks chime in?