http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/knau/local-knau-914131.mp3
Phoenix, AZ – The key relates to the fact that challengers are seeking an
injuction. Jack Chin, a law professor at the University of
Arizona, said that requires them to prove several things. One is
that they are likely to win when the case goes to trial months
from now. But Chin said judges also consider what they call the
balance of hardships.
(So one of the hardships would be people being arrested
unlawfully if indeed it is unlawful. That would be what the
plaintiffs would say. Then the state would say we are being
restrained from enforcing a valid law that we've enacted pursuant
to our constitutional authority as a state.)
There is a separate but related issue of who will suffer
irrepearable harm if the law is allowed to take effect pending a
full trial. Chin said attorneys need to pay attention to all
three factors.
(A complete lack of a showing on one prong is going to kill you.
If you have really irreparable harm but no case, you're not going
to get your injunction. On the other hand, if the harm is
overwhelming, a court might say a somewhat less compelling
showing of a likelihood of success on the merits will get you
your injunction.)
Chin said he presumes whichever side loses will immediately
appeal. For Arizona Public Radio this is Howard Fischer.