Preliminary injunctions are a frequently sought form of relief in public law litigation. However, federal courts are inconsistent in the tests they employ to grant or deny this relief. Two recent cases, Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council and Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, highlight a particularly important doctrinal grey area: how structural constitutional considerations ought to interact with traditional equitable relief. This Note seeks to disentangle federalism and separation of powers concerns from the traditional purpose of preliminary injunctive relief, which is to minimize irreparable harm. It argues for preserving the sliding-scale approach traditionally used to effectuate this purpose and calls for Supreme Court guidance in articulating a comprehensive and uniform standard.
DAN’S [F]LAW: STATUTORY FAILURE TO ENFORCE ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN CLINICAL DRUG TRIALS Noah Lewellen* I. INTRODUCTION Paul, a sophomore at the University of Minnesota, bursts into a lecture hall, loudly claims to see monsters sitting in the seats, and offers his services in slaying them. The police are called, and [...]
Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte
EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit. Although the case presented many serious [...]
Revisiting Water Bankruptcy
REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]