Will a court block NYC's horse-carriage ban before 2028?

If any federal or state court issues a temporary restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction, stay, vacatur, or judgment that blocks, enjoins, annuls, or declares invalid any part of New York City's ban on horse-drawn carriages passed by the City Council on October 22, 2026 (Int. No. 943-A, Romanch's Law) in a case challenging New York City's horse-drawn carriage ban before Jan 1, 2028, then the market resolves to Yes. The ruling must: Be issued by any federal or state court in a case challenging New York City's horse-drawn carriage ban Address the matter described by the specified judgment Be issued through a written order, opinion, judgment, or decision Partial relief counts. A written ruling that blocks the ban only as applied to one or more plaintiffs, or only its expiration of carriage licenses or license plates, qualifies. A temporary restraining order qualifies when it is issued in writing and its operative terms block or enjoin a covered part of the ban. It need not be converted or extended into a preliminary injunction. A stay qualifies when the written order's operative terms block or enjoin the ban or its enforcement. A stay entered solely for briefing, scheduling, or other administrative case management does not qualify. A qualifying ruling counts when issued, even if it is later stayed, vacated, or reversed. The following do NOT satisfy the Payout Criterion: A ruling that addresses only compensation, the industry transition plan, or the disposition of horses, and does not block the prohibition on operating horse-drawn carriages or the expiration of carriage licenses or license plates An agreement or stipulation of the parties not to enforce the ban, even if entered as an order of the court Oral rulings from the bench unless reduced to a written order Tentative rulings that are not made final Draft opinions that leak but are not officially issued Settlements or voluntary dismissals Administrative or scheduling orders Orders to show cause Minute orders that do not address the substantive issue in the specified judgment For clarity: If the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, that counts as a ruling only if the judgment refers to jurisdiction Sua sponte rulings count if they match the specified judgment Per curiam opinions and summary orders count as rulings If multiple judges issue separate opinions, the majority/plurality opinion controls