Opinion ID: 381346
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Irreparable injury to plaintiffs.

Text: 28 Interlocutory injunctions are sometimes necessary to assure that rights sought are not so eviscerated during trial that final relief would be to no avail. The injury to plaintiffs, absent interim relief, must also be evaluated to permit a comparison with harms to other parties and to the public. 29 Here plaintiffs represent children 37 who might work as hand harvesters if the Secretary is not enjoined from administering the waiver provision according to the challenged regulations. As a result, these children would be exposed to the pesticides and chemicals approved by the Secretary for use according to the listed minimum entry times, intended to reduce risks of exposure. 38 30 The risk of harm from such exposure pendente lite would not be eliminated even if plaintiffs ultimately were to win on the merits. 39 Thus, plaintiffs convincingly make out a case of irreparable harm, absent interlocutory relief. In arguing that plaintiffs have not provided evidence of adverse effects to children, the government neglects the evidence in the record. The EPA, the agency most expert in hazards from pesticide exposure, identified some substances approved by the challenged regulations as high-risk pesticides and others as highly toxic. 40 The EPA further noted that the regulation's reentry intervals may not be sufficient in light of the complex nature of pesticide degradation. 41 Further, OSHA and Clement Associates emphasized the known heightened susceptibility of pubescent children to harm from pesticide exposure. 42 It is in this context that the EPA, OSHA, and Clement Associates all stressed the insufficiency of current scientific information to assist the setting of safety standards for children exposed to pesticides. 43 These expert statements evidence insufficient knowledge of methods to combat known hazards. The hazards exist, and children's exposure to them constitutes the kind of irreparable departure from the status quo that necessitates interlocutory relief. 44 31