the form of a general strike was not considered because it did not seem feasible in view of the high unemployment during the Great Depression. There was also little prospect of success in a call for civil disobedience by civil servants. If open resistance were to occur, the government anticipated the outbreak of civil war, especially in the event of an armed clash between the Reichswehr and the state police, which it wanted to avoid at all costs. Moreover, legal recourse had not yet been exhausted. On 21 July 1932 the Prussian government filed an application for a temporary injunction and a constitutional complaint with the State Court of the Reich Supreme Court (). It was represented by Ministerial Director Arnold Brecht. The application for a temporary injunction was rejected on 25 July 1932 because the court did not want to anticipate its final decision. Joseph Goebbels noted in his diary on July 21: "The Reds have missed their great hour. It will never come again." Decision of the state court of 25 October 1932 In its October 25 ruling on the Prussia versus Reich case, the State Court called the measures that Reich Commissioner von Papen took to maintain order and security under the state emergency partially legal, but ruled that the Braun government was to retain its status under state law in its relationship to the state parliament (), the Reichstag, the Reichsrat and the Reich government. Its dismissal was ruled not justified. In the interim, however, Papen's provisional government had already replaced Prussia's top administrative and police officials. After the decision of the Reich Court, the Braun government, rehabilitated in terms of state law but deprived of its real power, reconvened for its weekly cabinet meetings as a so-called "sovereign government". The real power, however, lay with the representatives of the Reich execution – the "Commissar Government" under Franz Bracht. The Reich government ignored the provisions of the Reich Court's ruling, and the temporary operation of the commissarial administration was never terminated. Political scientist and historian Karl Dietrich Bracher assessed the compromising verdict as one of "grotesque ambivalence", since its legal section upheld the Prussian point of view, "while its basic political tenor, with its acquiescence to what had already happened, accommodated the coup-like whim of a government that was propped up only by the authority of the Reich President and the power of the Reichswehr." Carl