Globally, the general public would, I suspect, be much more sympathetic to a case brought by an AG than by Musk.
Is this very relevant? The case will be decided by a specialist judge, not the public, and Musk bringing a suit doesn’t preclude the AGs bringing their own cases.
Public sympathy isn’t relevant, but the identity of the litigant seeking injunctive relief could be. That’s because the standard for injunctive relief considers the public interest, and a governmental party’s position could be seen as evidence of that interest. Cf. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 420 (2009) (explaining that “[t]he third and fourth factors, harm to the opposing party and the public interest, merge when the Government is the opposing party”).
Is this very relevant? The case will be decided by a specialist judge, not the public, and Musk bringing a suit doesn’t preclude the AGs bringing their own cases.
Public sympathy isn’t relevant, but the identity of the litigant seeking injunctive relief could be. That’s because the standard for injunctive relief considers the public interest, and a governmental party’s position could be seen as evidence of that interest. Cf. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 420 (2009) (explaining that “[t]he third and fourth factors, harm to the opposing party and the public interest, merge when the Government is the opposing party”).
I don’t think this affects the outcome of the case but is import ant for other reasons.