A woman in Texas who has filed for a divorce after being denied by her husband may soon get the option to use a temporary restraining order to prevent her from getting another.
A Texas judge on Thursday ruled that a temporary injunction issued by the Supreme Court on February 26 is the “legal equivalent” of a divorce decree, which is the legal document that allows a spouse to stay together.
In Texas, a temporary order is typically issued by a judge only if the parties can’t work together to settle their differences in a way that protects the interests of both parties.
It’s a way to get an agreement in the meantime.
The temporary restraining orders that are issued for temporary divorce are the same as a divorce, but they’re more difficult to get because the parties may not know if their agreement is final.
The judge also noted that the temporary restraining is “not the only option available to women who are divorced, nor is it a necessary and sufficient remedy to achieve their best interests.”
The judge said that the order issued by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in December, which specifically mentioned temporary restraining injunctions, did not meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, and the injunction would be invalid if issued.
But he did not immediately issue a stay on the order, saying it was too soon to determine whether the temporary injunction would have the same effect as a formal divorce.
It is the first time in Texas history that a court has granted a temporary protective order to a married couple.
Paxton filed a lawsuit in April that sought a temporary court order that would allow the couple to stay separate while the case proceeds.
He said he hoped to have the injunction approved by a lower court in late June.
He has filed the lawsuit on behalf of his ex-wife and the couple’s two children.
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) had already denied the application for a temporary divorce.
But a federal judge ruled on Feb. 26 that a restraining order issued against Paxton was valid because the Texas Supreme Court had ruled that the state was not required to provide for a court hearing on the case.
The Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling on Feb, 28, saying that the court should have held a hearing on Paxton’s case.
That decision was appealed to the U