Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Court Rejects Modified Preliminary Injunction Test: Tenth Circuit
Practical Law Legal Update w-004-2079 (Approx. 3 pages)
Court Rejects Modified Preliminary Injunction Test: Tenth Circuit
by Practical Law Litigation
| Published on 31 Oct 2016 • USA (National/Federal) |
In Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Jewell, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the circuit's modified preliminary injunction test is inconsistent with the US Supreme Court's decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
On October 27, 2016, in Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Jewell, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the circuit's modified preliminary injunction test is inconsistent with the US Supreme Court's decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ( (10th Cir. Oct. 27, 2016)).
In March 2015, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit under the National Environmental Policy Act challenging the drilling of oil and gas wells in the Mancos Shale in New Mexico. The plaintiffs then moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent drilling on certain wells while the lawsuit was ongoing. The US District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the motion, holding that the plaintiffs did not satisfy three of the four prerequisites for obtaining a preliminary injunction. Specifically, relying on Winter and Resolution Trust Corp. v. Cruce, 972 F.2d 1195, 1198 (10th Cir.1992), the district court held that plaintiffs could only obtain a preliminary injunction if they demonstrated that:
- They were likely to prevail on the merits.
- They would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.
- The harm they would suffer without an injunction outweighs the harm that the preliminary injunction may cause the opposing party.
- The injunction would not adversely affect the public interest.
The plaintiffs appealed. They argued, in part, that the district court failed to apply the preliminary injunction test set out in Davis v. Mineta (302 F.3d 1104, 1111 (10th Cir. 2002)). In Davis, the Tenth Circuit stated that when the other three requirements for a preliminary injunction tip strongly in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiffs need not show a likelihood of success on the merits. Rather, the plaintiffs must only show that the issues presented are so "serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make the issue ripe for litigation and deserving of more deliberate investigation."
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held that:
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the Supreme Court's standard for injunctive relief.
- The modified test set forth in Davis and advocated by plaintiffs on appeal is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
In Winter, the Supreme Court overruled the Ninth Circuit's application of a modified preliminary injunction test that permitted plaintiffs who showed a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits to obtain a preliminary injunction when they could show only on a possibility, rather than a likelihood, of irreparable harm. While the test struck down in Winter relaxed a different prong of the preliminary injunction test, the Tenth Circuit found that the Supreme Court's rationale in Winter rendered impermissible any test that deviates from the standard test by relaxing one of the prongs for injunctive relief.