Central Student Judiciary
Michigan Student Assembly

Case #: W10-002
Pat PANNUTO, College of Engineering Representative, Michigan Student Assembly, et. al.
v.
Abhishek MAHANTI, Student Body President

March 13, 2010

Opinion
PER CURIAM
Introduction
Petitioners Pat Pannuto, a Representative in the Michigan Student Assembly of the College of Engineering, and Thomas Stuckey, a Representative in the Michigan Student Assembly of the Ross School of Business (collectively “Petitioners”), have petitioned this Court for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) to prevent the enforcement of EXECUTIVE ORDER W-10-001 (“Order”). This Executive Order was enacted on March 9, 2010 by Student Body President (“President”) Abhishek Mahanti. The Order states:
1. That all incoming packages postmarked or equivalent after March 9, 2010 shall not be accepted by the Michigan Student Assembly or any of its agents.
2. That a webstuff email will be sent within twenty-four (24) hours of the issuance of this order to all registered student groups informing them of this policy.
3. That this policy shall take effect immediately and shall only be revoked upon the Assembly’s successful adoption of a comprehensive liability management policy for student organization mailboxes.
Petitioners allege that the President does not have the authority to issue executive orders. Petitioners further allege that even if the President were to have such authority, the Order directly contradicts the will of the assembly. Additionally, petitioners allege that the Order does not afford students with sufficient time to make accommodations for the new regulations set forth in the order.
Petitioners seek a TRO to prevent the Order’s enforcement until a hearing can be held, at which time they intend to seek an injunction against the Order’s enforcement. The Court did not hear argument on the petition and President Mahanti did not file a response. For the reasons that follow, the petition for a TRO is hereby DENIED.

Discussion
Pursuant to Section 51.312 of the CSJ Manual of Procedure, the Court may issue a TRO when the following conditions are met: (a) the requesting party has filed a CSJ Form 51-1 (with all attachments) initiating an action . . . ; (b) the requesting party has filed with CSJ Form 51-2 accompanied by a short and plain statement explaining the need for the order; (c) the party seeking the order will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage before a hearing could be held (emphasis added); (d) there is some evidence to indicate that the party requesting the order will prevail at trial; (e) the order, if issued, will not cause irreparable injury, loss, or damage to the opposing party; and (f) four justices agree that the above conditions are met. Id. In addition, the TRO shall expire 48 hours after it is issued. Id.
By the terms this section, the TRO requirements are independent criteria that must each be satisfied in order for a TRO to issue. See Stenvig v. Election Director, F09-01, Order Denying Petition for TRO. That is, even where a plaintiff has shown a substantial probability of success on the merits and that a TRO will cause the opposing party to suffer no loss, the TRO will not issue where the plaintiff has not also shown that, without the TRO, the plaintiff will suffer “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage.” Id.
The Court finds that Petitioners have not met their burden of establishing that the TRO is necessary in order to prevent immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage to them before a hearing can be held, as required by § 51.312(c). Petitioners do not state how they will face any injury if a TRO does not issue. It appears from the complaint that any potential injury would be to the members of student organizations who intend to have packages delivered that have been postmarked after March 9, 2010. Absent a showing that petitioners themselves will face irreparable injury, this Court will not grant the requested relief. See Stenvig Order.
Additionally, as to the likelihood of success at trial, § 51.312(d), the Court has not been convinced that Petitioners have standing to bring this claim as an original action against the President. This Court is not in the position to grant relief to any party unless and until that party has been injured, or shown that they are substantially likely to be injured in the future. No group of four justices has voted to issue a TRO, and the request will be denied.
Conclusion
Nothing on the face of Petitioners’ submissions lead us to believe that they will suffer any harm before a hearing can be held on this matter. Although a hearing will be set to address the merits of Petitioners’ claims by separate order, their ability to have their case heard will require them to show an actual injury, or substantial likelihood of injury, to themselves before the case can go forward. Petitioners should be prepared to address this issue at the hearing.
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s petition for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.
Dated this 13th Day of March, 2010.
By the Court