Right, from Judge Legg, it goes to the court of appeals in Richmond. If they lose there, conceivably they could ask the SCT to review the case before judgment but they are not going to that. Such requests are extremely rare and even more rarely granted. Probably not to going to happen here. The courts are cautious. Understand this: Judge Legg's order changes the status quo with an order striking down a state statute on constitutional grounds which are, legally, still subject to intense legal debate. It is not unusual for the courts to issue a stay keeping the status quo intact pending completion of litigation. A stay would not mean we would lose on appeal, it may just mean that the courts want to proceed cautiously. You will have to read carefully any stay order to assess the court's rationale.
Is it a valid reason to grant a stay because of the difficulty of "undoing" the effects in the event that the appeal is successful? I'm wondering if even though folks feel that this case is a winner on the merits, could the stay be granted just to keep the barn door closed. (assuming for argument's sake that neither Judge Legg nor the 4th believe the "blood in the streets" reasoning)