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.
Volume 94 - No. 3
- Note: Big Enough To Matter: Whether Statistical Significance or Practical Significance Should Be the Test for Title VII Disparate Impact Claims
- Note: Of Mosquitoes, Adolescents, and Reproductive Rights: Public Health and Reproductive Risks in a Genomic Age
- Note: Payments on Debt After Discharge: When a Discharge Is Not Really a Discharge and the Limits of Taxpayer Recourse
- Inherent National Sovereignty Constitutionalism: An Original Understanding of the U.S. Constitution
- Reproduction Reconceived
© 2011-2016 Minnesota Law Review. All Rights Reserved.