Opinion ID: 621131
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Irreparable Harm, Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest

Text: The district court properly exercised its discretion in concluding that the remaining Winter factors also support issuance of the injunction. With respect to the second factor, irreparable harm, the district court correctly noted that [t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury and that harm is particularly irreparable where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to engage in political speech, as timing is of the essence in politics and [a] delay of even a day or two may be intolerable. Thalheimer, 645 F.3d at 1128 (alterations in original) (quoting Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1208 (9th Cir.2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court's conclusion that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm from the contribution limit due to the limited time they had to gather signatures thus was not an abuse of discretion. Nor did the court err in concluding that the balance of equities and public interest favor an injunction. It was within the district court's discretion to conclude that the public interest in upholding free speech and association rights outweighed the interest in continued enforcement of these campaign finance provisions after weighing the relevant considerations. Id. at 1128-29.