California respondents opposition to 26A305

… face complying with the rule, including some claims that immediate implementation would prove impossible.” Id. But it brushed aside those concerns and concluded “there is no compelling reason for any delay.” Id. 3. Plaintiff States filed this lawsuit challenging the rule, see Dkt. 1, and moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in light of the rapidly approaching November elections, see Dkt. 5. On August 27, the district court granted a TRO while the expedited preliminary injunction proceedings continued. Dkt. 31. Defendants and intervenors appealed the TRO and moved for a stay pending appeal. See Dkts. 58, 61. The district court denied those motions. Dkt. 72. Briefing on defendants’ and intervenors’ stay motions concluded in the court of appeals on September 2. --- <!-- page 11 --> 9 The district court held its preliminary injunction hearing on September 3 and indicated that it intended to rule promptly. A few hours later, defendants …