My opinion, if the district court doesn't side with DOJ, then SCOTUS most certainly will. Especially given the previous ruling on a similar matter under the Obama administration.

Reference:

• AB 450 prohibits private employers from cooperating with federal immigration officials and requires that private employers notify employees in advance of a potential worksite enforcement inspection. DOJ claims that this forces California employers to be caught between state and federal law. Business owners could be fined $2,000 to $10,000 for failing to comply with AB 450.

• SB 54 prevents local law enforcement from providing information to federal authorities about the release date of undocumented immigrants who are in their custody and bans the transfer of these criminal immigrants to federal custody. This breaks federal law that pertains to communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, DOJ officials said.

• AB 103 imposes a state-run inspection and review of the federal detention of immigrants held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts and includes a review of immigration processes and the circumstances in which immigrants were apprehended. This review applies only to facilities with civil immigration detainees. The law seeks to regulate federal immigration detention, according to the complaint, which is not allowed under the Constitution.
  

Mr. Fox said some policy changes could lead to an overall decrease in gun violence, such as banning "bump stocks" and raising the age of purchase for assault rifles from 18 to 21. But he doesn't believe such measures will prevent all school shootings.

The biggest challenge I'm having is the idea that since we've had a lot of school shootings in the last few decades, they're inevitable.  

The police captain is sure that the girlfriend thrown in jail can lead him to The Ghost, so he sends a rookie to infiltrate the prison and get close to her. They fall in love. But the counterpart to "Mother" who runs the woman's side of the prison, is making life very rough for her. There's a bit too much prison violence for me.

Excellent  point.

It has the distinction of being the only movie I ever walked out of after paying to see it.

thomas rogan: "Google does say: 'For there to be a contract, written or oral, there must be: (1) an offer (2) acceptance (3) and consideration. An offer is just that, offering to do something or refraining from something.' Since this wasn't a real estate case, why does Trump's signature matter?"

The so-called "failure" of "David Dennison" to sign the document was likely purposeful, that is, it was clearly intended as a means to give Trump plausible deniability during any negotiations with "Peggy Peterson" aka Stephanie Clifford (who's also known professionally as Stormy Daniels) then being undertaken on his behalf by his fixer / consigliere Michael Cohen in this very sorry and tawdry matter.

Personally, I think we're way beyond that particular point now. Quite obviously, Trump knew what Cohen was doing and likely, so did a few others associated with the campaign. And it clearly worked -- or at least, it worked for the duration of the 2016 presidential election. Now, not so much.

While I'm not an attorney either, I've heretofore been under the impression that the issuance of legal orders is the sole province of the judiciary, and that an aggrieved party must petition the court to enforce a contractual agreement which they consider both binding and subsequently breached.

So, I'm very hard-pressed to believe that an arbitrator -- even one who's a retired judge, as is the case here -- actually possesses sufficient legal standing to issue a temporary restraining order on his or her own, as has since been claimed by not only Michael Cohen but also by the Trump White House, per Press Secretary Sarah Sanders' statements to that effect this past Wednesday.

Further, it's also been my understanding that a TRO cannot be granted to a plaintiff (in this case, Cohen), without first offering the defendant (in this case, Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels) an opportunity to respond and contest the motion. None of that appears to have happened here relative to the arbitrator who issued this dubious order to Clifford to comply with the terms of the contract, and cease any and all discussion of her alleged affair with Trump.

When Ms. Clifford was first approached this past autumn by reporters who either knew about or had heard of their affair, and she began to talk about what had happened in both 2006 and then 10 years later in October 2016 when Cohen first bought her silence, he subsequently attempted to intimidate her by threatening legal action for breach of contract.

What looks to have caught both Cohen and Trump by surprise here was that Clifford has refused to back down. Rather, she's instead responded by filing a lawsuit of her own against Trump to void their earlier agreement.

From my layman's perspective, this looks to be terribly dicey legal ground for Trump, particularly if Clifford can prove that Cohen bought her silence during the 2016 presidential campaign on then-candidate Trump's behalf and further, that the candidate himself prompted the initial discussions and was aware of the subsequent negotiations.

Trump's situation is now further compounded by today's revelations that Cohen apparently used a Trump campaign email account in his negotiations with Clifford regarding the eventual $130,000 payoff, which if true was obviously a not-very-smart move on Cohen's part.

The Federal Election Commission could very well interpret that as evidence of intent by then-candidate Trump to violate federal campaign finance law, by knowingly circumventing the requirement that all in-kind contributions to the campaign be reported as such. And that's a federal crime.

A case can certainly be made here that Cohen's payment to Clifford was an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign. If one goes further and considers Cohen's alleged subsequent complaint to associates that the Trump campaign or the candidate himself then failed to reimburse him the $130,000 in payout expenses, Trump could be facing some very significant legal exposure.

And how ironic would that be, were Trump to be ultimately toppled from power not by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of his campaign's alleged collusion with Russia, but by the adverse consequences of his own high-handed and arrogant treatment of a tough and street-smart adult film star who refused to be bullied into silence?