ABC praises the fact that the federal court in New Jersey found that the plaintiff had standing to sue over bail reform! Woo Hoo! Standing!
All that means is that the person suing is the person who can sue. It's a jurisdictional matter that is so fundamental that most lawyers -- but apparently not ABC's -- make sure they have it before they ever go near the courthouse. The fact that it even came up and seems like it's going to eventually exclude Lexington National means that these lawyers need a nice refresher course on federal jurisdiction.
When it comes to a motion for preliminary injunction, there are four factors that the court balances. I won't bore you all of them because the industry failed to show any of them. Like none. Just like in New Mexico. Zero. Zip.
I will, however, focus a second on the factor that says the party seeking to get the injunction has to show "likelihood of success on the merits." This is the big one, because it gives us a glimpse of the actual legal arguments and how they might eventually stand up if, in fact, the case ever goes to trial.
But as you may have surmised by now, the bail industry didn't show likelihood of success on any legal claim. The Judge wrote: "In summary, neither Holland nor Lexington has shown likelihood of success on the merits of their Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Fourth Amendment claims. Neither plaintiff has made a showing of a reasonable probability of eventual success on any claim examined above."
That gives you a pretty good idea of how things will go if this thing ever gets to trial.
Let me quote from the judge: "Finally, if these considerations were a close call -- which the Court does not find them to be -- then the balance would even further tip in favor of denying the injunction because of doubts about Lexington's standing and the arguments favoring Younger abstention."
Bail industry likely to succeed on the merits? Nope. Not even close.
