Opinion ID: 172146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The remaining factors to be satisfied for a preliminary injunction

Text: Even with its evidence of risk evaluated under the correct legal standard, Oklahoma faces a steep uphill battle in order to succeed on its motion for preliminary injunction. In order to prevail on such a motion, a plaintiff must show `(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case; (2) irreparable injury to the movant if the preliminary injunction is denied; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the injury to the other party under the preliminary injunction; [and] (4) the injunction is not adverse to the public interest.' O Centro, 389 F.3d at 999 (quoting Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 955 (10th Cir.2001)). This is, on its own, a rigorous test, and one made all the more rigorous when, as in this case, the plaintiff seeks an injunction that has been historically disfavored. Id. at 975-77. Because Oklahoma is seeking an injunction that would alter the status quo, it must make a heightened showing of the four factors necessary for ordinary preliminary injunctions. Id. at 976-77. That heightened showing requirement means that the State's motion should be even more closely scrutinized to assure that the exigencies of the case support the granting of a remedy that is certainly extraordinary. Id. at 979. At oral argument, the Poultry Integrators suggested that this injunction would have a substantial impact on local industry. Furthermore, trial itself is now just a few months away. Thus, I have significant doubt as to whether Oklahoma could prevail under the district court's heightened scrutiny of the three non-merits prongs of the preliminary injunction analysis. Nonetheless, it is for the district court, not this court, to make that determination in the first instance. The district court's opinion and order was not grounded in those non-merits factors, and neither is the majority opinion.