Opinion ID: 6112665
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Other Factors for Injunctive Relief

Text: Finally, the other factors for an injunction either favor the government or are neutral. Each side faces a threat of irreparable harm, depending on whether an injunction is issued. If the government were erroneously required to guarantee subsidized loans to plaintiﬀs, there is no reason to expect that it could recover such funds. Because the government is likely to prevail on the merits, denying plaintiﬀs an injunction serves the public interest by implementing the policy chosen by Congress. On the other hand, if the government were unlikely to prevail on the merits, an injunction would serve the public interest by enforcing constitutional rights and allowing plaintiﬀs to take advantage of a generous program of emergency economic relief. If we are mistaken in denying injunctive relief to plaintiﬀs, they risk going out of business, and governmental immunity would prevent any monetary recovery from the government or its oﬃcials. That risk is mitigated somewhat by the government’s assurances that it has set funds aside for plaintiﬀs during the course of this litigation, but we recognize that delay in providing those funds could prevent plaintiﬀs from beneﬁting at all. On balance, however, the government’s 18 No. 21-2589 strong likelihood of success on the merits weighs decisively against a preliminary injunction. For these reasons, the district court’s preliminary injunction is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.