This was by a 2 (Bennet and Sanchez)-1 vote (Bumatay)- with a per curiam, two concurrences, and a dissent.

The per curiam focuses on jurisdiction- the district court judge has not ruled on the TRO, which and the panel rejects the government's theory that the district court had constructively denied the TRO like in AARP, so there was no appealable order.

Bennet's concurrence goes to the merits- arguing there is likely no legal ground for DOJ's demand, the equities are in favor of California and not the government, and Purcell likely applies.

Sanchez's concurrence also goes to the merits- highlighting Purcell and the chaos that would likely result if an injection was granted for the government.

Bumatay's dissent argues that the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction because the district court had constructively denied the motion, and on the merits that the federal government has power to stop threats to the integrity of an election.

I would be unsurprised if this gets appealed to SCOTUS.

submitted by…