After denying a temporary restraining order at a hearing on July 20, the court also denied my requests for expedited discovery and an expedited preliminary-injunction hearing. I respectfully disagree with the court’s analysis. The court: (1) suggested that an informal group like a law faculty may not be an expressive association, although one federal court of appeals and two federal district courts have held that law faculties are expressive associations; (2) treated the right of expressive association as belonging to the faculty as a group rather than to me as a member, although the Sixth Circuit case it cited assumed that an individual member suffers an injury when the right is violated; and (3) viewed the suit as an attempt by the faculty to supersede the University’s authority, whereas University rules and accreditation standards have given the faculty a say in choosing its dean for at least half a century. I discuss the opinion further in my Superseding Motion to Consolidate Hearings in the state dean case.