As “I wrote last month” [link] “It is inconceivable that the AATA will approve the advertisement under its new policy … “

Just to clarify, the third point at the end of the brief was likely asked to carry too heavy an explanatory burden: “(3) On Jan. 9, 2013 a status conference with the court will be held to discuss whether additional preliminary injunctive relief is proper and what will happen next.”

This lawsuit has not yet gone to trial. This first year has been taken up on this motion for a preliminary injunction, on which the plaintive prevailed, but did not get the relief that was sought – that the ad be run. If the case does go to trial, then the fact that the court has already granted some form of injunctive relief – based on a finding that the original AATA ad policy was unconstitutional and that plaintiff was likely to prevail at trial – would be a significant factor. So the Jan. 9 status conference could result in any number of paths that might eventually lead to a permanent resolution to the lawsuit, including one that has it proceeding to trial or one that reaches some kind of settlement, or something else. In any event, I just wanted to make clear that the AATA board’s action today was more of a formal step towards reaching the next decision point, as opposed to an action that puts the issue to rest.