Why exactly do you think certificate authorities have a legal right to appear in trust stores?

Is that really the claim, though? If someone chooses to punish DigiCert for compliance with the TRO then DigiCert might have grounds to file for declarative relief from the court, as the court could very well decide to help protect DigiCert from external consequences of their demand.

Perhaps, but only in the case that the delayed revocations were scoped to those certificates covered by the TRO, and not over 1000x more from subscribers who had nothing to do with the company who filed the TRO.

Well personally, I think that'd be a terrible position for them to take. Honoring the TRO is, as far as I can tell, not the issue that is being raised.

This case literally involves the courts getting involved in what should appear in trust stores. DigiCert was ordered by the courts to not revoke certificates via a TRO.

If the browsers removed DigiCert, DigiCert could certainly sue based on the harm to their business. They could argue that the browser vendors were inconsistent with the application of their rules. They could argue that the browser vendors were unfairly competing by kicking them out.

Not saying they would win all these, but they would certainly fight it - the alternative would be the end of DigiCert, they aren't going to go down without a fight in whatever venue they can find.

> DigiCert was ordered by the courts to not revoke certificates via a TRO.

... and DigiCert did not try to appeal the TRO.

Both Google and Microsoft tend to act like they have enough money and lawyers to defend whatever behaviour they feel like engaging in.

Those companies are always ready to defend themselves in court, and this is a country with extremely strong free speech rights.

What country?