> Yeah, the courts generally say that you have to accommodate or remedy whatever the general request or grievance. They generally do not write/rewrite policy.

That’s…actually not all that true, especially in the case of systematic racial discrimination by local government. School integration, including bussing, is a pretty good example where policy was often dictated in fairly explicit detail by the courts.

In the case of school integration, the prior ruling under Brown was not being followed. That failure to follow that ruling then lead to a second judgement giving judges specific powers to force the correct implementation of Brown if the school districts had not done it themselves.

It's very odd to jump directly to writing detailed policy on a first judgment. Usually it's only that a specific policy is not allowed or general issue must be corrected. Usually it takes a failure of valid corrective policy to be implement for the courts to force a specific policy which they have devised.

> It's very odd to jump directly to writing detailed policy on a first judgment

It is not at all unusual for preliminary injunctions, when they are issued at all, to include specific mandated interim actions to prevent or interrupt ongoing harm. That’s, in fact, the whole reason preliminary injunctions exist.

I missed that it was an injunction. I still feel this is unusual for an injunction given the scope.

Right, but... if I understand correctly, the judge ordered things to be done to stop the ongoing harm while the case was being decided. In order to avoid having to do this, LA is going to need to win an appeal about the temporary order before the 180 days runs out. Court slowness is now working against LA.

Disclaimer: IANAL, and all that...

Ah, I missed the part about it being temporary. It seems like quite a large and expansive judgement for a temporary measure. Usually they are small injunctions against a new law or policy, like the recent one against enforcing the bump stock ban.