Opinion ID: 221342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, which occurs when the district court bases its ruling on an incorrect legal standard or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the facts. Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. of Educ., 331 F.3d 342, 348 (2d Cir.2003). To obtain a preliminary injunction a party must demonstrate... that it will be irreparably harmed if an injunction is not granted. Id. at 348-49. For mandatory injunctions, which alter rather than maintain the status quo, such as the one at issue here, the movant must show a `clear' or `substantial' likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 349. The requirements for a permanent injunction are essentially the same as for a preliminary injunction, except that the moving party must demonstrate actual success on the merits. The district court is authorized to determine, as it did here, that the evidence before it suffices for that purpose. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987). Our standard of review remains the same. Whether a plaintiff has standing to sue is a question of law that we review de novo. Shain v. Ellison, 356 F.3d 211, 214 (2d Cir.2004).