***UPDATE 11/11/2023 at 10:25 AM*** -- Per Pete Thamel, there will be no hearing today.  There is a hearing scheduled for November 17, 2023.  If you follow my comments below, this means that the judge refused to grant the TRO "ex parte" (ie, without B1G's counsel present).  This is a blow to Michigan both short term and long term. Short term is obviously Harbaugh can't coach today. Long term, it means the judge was skeptical enough of UM's arguments that she wants a hearing with B1G's counsel present. 

***

Per several reporters, Michigan has filed for a TRO.  I have not been able to review that document but I am assuming for the sake of argument that UM raised the same issues in its Motion for TRO as it did in its ten page letter.

Some thoughts:

1. Will Michigan Try to Get This TRO Ex Parte? Pursuant to Rule 65 (the rule governing TROs), you generally must call opposing counsel before a TRO hearing is held so that the other side can appear and make its arguments before a TRO is issued.  However, and being very general here, there is an exception for emergency circumstances. Today (a court holiday) would possibly be such a circumstance. BUT …
    
2. The Big Ten’s Letter Was a Preemptive Strike — The Big Ten anticipated this, and so instead of issuing a one page disciplinary letter, it wrote what I believe is essentially a 13 page preemptive brief against UM’s arguments.  The Big Ten’s letter is hardly a notice of discipline, it is an outline of their legal arguments. The Big Ten’s arguments as to why Rule 32 does not supersede the Sportsmanship Policy, why Harbaugh may be punished (contra to UM’s argument that only the “institution” or the “individual” can be punished), etc. are now in the public domain.  If the judge is doing his or her due diligence he or she will be able to review these arguments and make a more sound decision.
    
3. When the Facts Suck, Argue Procedure, and Vice Versa. There is an old saying in the law that when the facts suck, argue procedure; and when you are caught procedurally, emphasize your good facts. Here Michigan’s ten page argument was literally all procedure. That tells me that they know they are caught red-handed, and this is all just a stall tactic. Just speculating here but I am expecting SIGNIFICANT penalties before next season.
    
4. Does a Michigan Court Have Jurisdiction to Enforce the TRO? It is too late for me on a Friday night to really think about this, but I question whether a Michigan state court’s TRO would have any affect here. Again speaking very generally, you have to sue in a jurisdiction where the order can be enforced. A dumb example — if a guy in PA owes you money, you eventually have to get your judgment to PA so you can collect on it, as an OH court has no jurisdiction to enforce a judgment there.  Here Michigan is playing tomorrow in PA.  The Big Ten is in IL. How can a Michigan state court have any jurisdiction here? Perhaps it can argue the Big Ten also exists in MI due to the presence of UM and MSU. Perhaps Michigan filed in federal court, which has broader jurisdiction, but that seems unclear.
    
5. Will the Judge Get Big Ten’s Counsel on the Line (Contra to Point 1)? So part one was about that this might be ex parte. Given the stakes, I would not be surprised if the judge tells UM to get the Big Ten’s lawyers on the line so the hearing is not ex parte, and so that all sides can make their respective arguments.
    
6. If It Is Ex Parte, the Full Hearing Must Be Within 14 Days.  If this TRO is granted ex parte, a full hearing with opposing counsel must be held within 14 days. Umm, fourteen days from now is the day before The Game. I can’t handle this.
    
7. UM’s Lawyers Did as Well as They Could. Will it Matter?  I was actually impressed by the ten page letter from UM.  It was enough to at least cause some confusion, and if the judge is confused as well, he will grant a TRO so as to avoid “irreperable harm.”

   BUT, when a full hearing is had, I still stand by the fact that I don’t think Michigan’s arguments are very good.  I cannot see them getting a full injunction, not when the Big Ten acted more quickly and issued a harsher suspension on Juwan Howard just a year ago under the same policy. This throws out the due process arguments, the Rule 32 arguments, etc. 

   Michigan is going down. The TRO is at best a 14 day stall tactic. The entire litigation is a stall tactic. After reviewing the Big Ten’s letter, Michigan is going to get the hammer. Just give it some time.

Oh, and in conclusion, REMOVE ALL DOUBT NOVEMBER 25. BEAT MICHIGAN.