When politics tramples the law there is no justice. Here's all you need to know about the judge who ruled on the Planned Parenthood video release.

Obama Appointee And Bundler Blocks More Video Releases By Group Behind Planned Parenthood Sting

JULY 31, 2015 By Mollie Hemingway

A federal judge late Friday granted a temporary restraining orderagainst the release of recordings made at an annual meeting of abortion providers. The injunction is against the Center for Medical Progress, the group that has unveiled Planned Parenthood’s participation in the sale of organs harvested from aborted children.

Judge William H. Orrick, III, granted the injunction just hours after the order was requested by the National Abortion Federation.

Orrick was nominated to his position by hardline abortion supporter President Barack Obama. He was also a major donor to and bundler for President Obama’s presidential campaign. He raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting him, according to Public Citizen.

Even though the National Abortion Federation filed its claim only hours before, Orrick quickly decided in their favor that the abortionists they represent would, ironically, be “likely to suffer irreparable injury, absent an ex parte temporary restraining order, in the form of harassment, intimidation, violence, invasion of privacy, and injury to reputation, and the requested relief is in the public interest.”

Thus far the videos have featured born-alive humans discussing the killing of what abortion providers themselves call “babies,” the “crushing” of their bodies and harvesting of their organs for sale to for-profit companies.

From Orrick’s restraining order:

YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on Monday, August 3, 2015 at 4:00 p.m., before the Honorable William H. Orrick, at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Courtroom 2, why you, your officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with you, should not be enjoined and restrained from engaging in, committing, or performing, directly and indirectly, any and all of the following acts:
(1) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party any video, audio, photographic, or other recordings taken, or any confidential information learned, at any NAF annual meetings;
(2) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party the dates or locations of any future NAF meetings;
(3) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party the names or addresses of any NAF members learned at any NAF annual meetings; and
(4) attempting to gain access to any future NAF meetings.

Pending hearing on the above Order to Show Cause you, your officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with you ARE HEREBY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from:
(1) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party any video, audio, photographic, or other recordings taken, or any confidential information learned, at any NAF annual meetings;
(2) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party the dates or locations of any future NAF meetings; and
(3) publishing or otherwise disclosing to any third party the names or addresses of any NAF members learned at any NAF annual meetings.

The suit filed by the National Abortion Federation attempted to restrain the journalism on the grounds that the Center for Medical Progress would be in violation of non-disclosure agreements its journalists had signed. The issue of whether you can restrain journalistic expression on such grounds is not cut and dry, according to Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment lawyer.

David Daleiden, the journalist behind the Center for Medical Progress videos, told CNN earlier today that the reason why Stem Express filed suit against release of a video of their meeting with him is because they admitted to receiving fully intact fetuses from abortion clinics. Daleiden said those conversations may have shown “prima facie evidence of born-alive infants.”

The Center for Medical Progress responded to the injunction:

The Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work. The National Abortion Federation is a criminal organization that has spent years conspiring with Planned Parenthood on how to violate federal laws on partial-birth abortion and fetal tissue sales. The Center for Medical Progress will contest any attempts to suppress our First Amendment rights to free speech or silence the freedom of the citizen press.

We’ll have to wait to find out just how grisly the National Abortion Federation’s discussion of organ harvesting was.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist.