Opinion ID: 3066182
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Type of Injunction Sought

Text: Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ requested injunction is mandatory, and thus subject to a heightened burden of proof. Defendants are mistaken. “A mandatory injunction orders a responsible party to take action,” while “[a] prohibitory injunction prohibits a party from taking action and preserves the status quo pending a determination of the action on the merits.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 878–79 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). The relevant status quo is that “between the parties pending a resolution of a case on the merits.” McCormack v. Hiedeman, 694 F.3d 1004, 1019 (9th Cir. 2012). As this language from McCormack suggests, the “status quo” refers to the legally relevant relationship between the parties before the controversy arose. See id. at 1020. Here, Plaintiffs contest the enforceability of Defendants’ new policy. The status quo before Defendants’ revised their policy in response to DACA was that Plaintiffs were subject to a legal regime under which all holders of federal Employment Authorization Documents were eligible for Arizona driver’s licenses. By revising their policy in response to DACA, Defendants affirmatively changed this status quo. 12 ARIZONA DREAM ACT COALITION V. BREWER The district court erred in defining the status quo ante litem as a situation in which “Defendants did not issue driver’s licenses to Plaintiffs.” Plaintiffs do not challenge any particular refusal to grant driver’s licenses to them as individuals. Instead, Plaintiffs challenge the Arizona Department of Transportation’s driver’s license eligibility standards, in general. The result of an injunction here may be that, under state law, Arizona will ultimately provide driver’s licenses to DACA recipients. But an injunction will not “order[]” Defendants to take this step. See Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 879. Likewise, it does not matter that DACA recipients only became eligible for Employment Authorization Documents pursuant to a new federal policy, or that Defendants timed their new policy to come into effect before Plaintiffs could obtain Employment Authorization Documents. An action by a third party (here, the federal government) that will not be affected by this litigation cannot define the status quo between the parties. Plaintiffs’ requested preliminary injunction is not mandatory. Instead, like other injunctions that prohibit enforcement of a new law or policy, Plaintiffs’ requested injunction is prohibitory. See, e.g., Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725, 727–30, 732 n.13 (9th Cir. 1999).