Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs)
First and foremost, a request for a TRO should not be submitted by itself. A TRO request should be filed as part of a larger petition; the ‘temporary’ in TRO means until the resolution of the question that underlies the dispute. Still, there are some issues that should be made clear in the part of the overall petition that contains the TRO request.
STANDING to bring the request – although this is usually addressed in the larger petition, a brief restatement of standing is not inappropriate. Standing is a legalese phrase indicating that you are somehow affected by the action or dispute, and/or that you have a material interest in a particular outcome in the dispute. Sometimes this issue will be held for a final hearing even if considered to be in dispute at the time of the TRO phase.
JURISDICTION of the Court – why is the question something that the Court can decide? This will usually be something in the UCSU Constitution or in one of the Court’s previous rulings that lists that the types of cases (in the larger petition) is something assigned to or assumed by the Court to adjudicate.
RIPENESS of the case – this is another of those legalese phrases. It means that the dispute has progressed to the point where there is some action the Court can evaluate. You must also demonstrate either that there are no other lesser places where you can seek redress or that you have tried all of the other lesser places and still have a grievance. As an example, if the Legislative Council has a bill that takes two readings to adopt, and the bill has only been heard once, the case is not yet ‘ripe.’
MOOTNESS of the case – flipside of ripeness. The question can not be brought to the Court after the matter is settled by other means. For example, one can not challenge something from the budgets from the previous fiscal year as that year is over and done, and the university has closed the books on it.
ACTION TO BE RESTRAINED – What do you want done or undone pending the full hearing? Who shall be directed to do or stop doing it? From what source does the Court have the authority to direct the restraint of the particular action? How does this relate to the underlying question of the dispute? NOTE: The requested remedy can not render moot the underlying dispute.
IRREPARABLE HARM – this is one of the two elements that must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court if a TRO request is to be granted. What bad thing will happen that later can not be undone (or, at least, would require incredible effort to undo) if the TRO is not granted but the Court rules in favor of the petitioner on the underlying question at a full hearing on the case?
REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS – this is the other element that must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court if a TRO request is to be granted. List the merits of your claim; tell the Court why the interpretation that most favors you of the governing documents that are in question in the current dispute is the ‘right’ or ‘best’ one for the Court to adopt. There may be several points in the governing documents that are relevant; address all of them in your initial filing. This is because the Court will not allow you to raise new issues at a TRO hearing (they’ll have to wait for the full hearing, if there is to be one) to ensure that the respondent will have an adequate understanding of the dispute that they can present a fair defense of their position.
How the TRO process will work: