The appellate court — lifting the TRO against Mary Trump's book — said "while parties are free to enter into confidentiality agreements, courts are not necessarily obligated to specifically enforce them."

It noted that NDAs are "alternatively enforceable through the impassion of money damages."

CNN reports.

As you may know, that's what I said yesterday, and so many of you jumped on me in the comments.

But I need to check another source. I can't believe the court wrote "the impassion of money damages." It has to be "the imposition of money damages." Who made the mistake? I hope it's CNN and not the court.

AND: Here's the New York state court opinion. It's the intermediate court, the Appellate Division, Second Department (Brooklyn):

While Ms. Trump unquestionably possesses the same First Amendment expressive rights belonging to all Americans, she also possesses the right to enter into contracts, including the right to contract away her First Amendment rights. Parties are free to limit their First Amendment rights by contract.... A court may enforce an agreement preventing disclosure of specific information without violating the restricted party’s First Amendment rights if the party received consideration in exchange for the restriction... A party may effectively relinquish First Amendment rights by executing a secrecy agreement in which the party receives significant benefits....

Here, the plaintiff has presented evidence that Ms. Trump, in exchange for valuable consideration, voluntarily entered into a settlement agreement...

It bears noting that, while parties are free to enter into confidentiality agreements, courts are not necessarily obligated to specifically enforce them. Whether to issue an injunction is a matter of equity. Confidentiality agreements are alternatively enforceable through the imposition of money damages.

So the error is CNN's.

In determining whether to grant specific performance thorough the use of the equitable remedy of an injunction, courts should balance the legitimate interests of the party seeking to enforce the contract with other legitimate interests, including, especially in this context, the public interest....

Ms. Trump contends that to restrain her from publishing a work concerning the character and fitness of the President in an election year would unduly infringe upon her First Amendment rights, notwithstanding her entry into the confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement. There is no need to decide this issue at this juncture, as the election at issue is still four months away....

It's the TRO against the publisher, Simon & Schuster that is lifted. There's still a TRO against Mary Trump, as the case goes forward to a hearing on a preliminary injunction.