EIA Emergency Investigation Preliminary Order Hearing Canceled Yesterday

Yesterday we were scheduled to have a hearing on the preliminary injunction in the Texas Blockchain Council v. Department of Energy case. But as often happens in litigation, things change quickly. A judge on Tuesday issued an order canceling today’s hearing based on the fact that the parties had reached an “agreement in principle” on the entire dispute. This agreement must be completed and submitted by Friday, March 1st.

It’s guessing time.

What does this mean? One element of the standard for temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions is that the party requesting them must demonstrate that they are “likely to succeed on their merits.” This means that judges must believe that success is not only possible, but also more likely than not. Here, the judge had already agreed that “plaintiffs will likely succeed in demonstrating that the facts asserted by defendants in support of the emergency motion fall far short of justifying such action.” and that the government’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Losing TRO is not a positive sign, but it is a big red flag. The government does not like to lose, and it is very likely that it already knows that once it loses on this standard, it will lose both the preliminary injunction and the permanent injunction.

One problem is discovery. As part of proving the case, plaintiffs may request internal communications and other materials that could show abuse of discretion or undue influence. The Energy Information Administration has used only a small number of emergency data collection authorities. a real emergencyEmergency investigation in response to 2021 Colonial Pipeline cyberattack, and more.

Given the context of Senator Warren’s and the Biden administration’s ongoing attacks on Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining, is there any reason to believe that there are no objectionable emails or communications between that office and the EIA that show undue influence? What could cause a historically cautious and respected organization to suddenly release a piece of work like EIA-862? EIA-862 was certified by the President’s Office of Management and Budget for clear technical violations of internal standards.

It’s not that this kind of undue influence hasn’t happened before…just look at the Custodia Bank lawsuit for example. “Perhaps the most surprising fact that would never have seen the light of day if not discovered is this: After a mysterious briefing was made to Vice Chairman Barr regarding the collapse of FTX and Custodia’s membership and master account applications, Board staff edited and rewrote key portions of the Kansas City Fed’s internal memo. … Discovery shows the board is deeply entangled in the outcome of Custodia’s master account requests. “Such levels of intervention are inconsistent with the notion of unfettered central bank discretion,” reads page 54 of Custodia’s December 22, 2023 summary of judgments on matters of law.

While we wait for more information, it seems clear that the government’s voluntary concessions reveal some combination of a perception that they have demonstrated flagrant incompetence or that the findings will have a materially unfair impact on the process.

This is a guest post from . Colin Crossman. The opinions expressed are solely personal and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.