Opinion ID: 783248
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: 7 This court generally reviews a district court's decision to issue a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 198 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir.1999). In issuing a preliminary injunction, a district court abuses its discretion by basing its decision on either an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings. Id. (citation omitted). A district court's decision is based on an erroneous legal standard if: (1) the court did not employ the appropriate legal standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction; or (2) in applying the appropriate standards, the court misapprehended the law with respect to the underlying issues in the litigation. Id. (citing Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982)). 8 The standard for granting a preliminary injunction balances the plaintiff's likelihood of success against the relative hardship to the parties. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate 9 either: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.... These two alternatives represent extremes of a single continuum, rather than two separate tests ... Thus, the greater the relative hardship to [the party seeking the preliminary injunction,] the less probability of success must be shown. 10 Id. at 731 (citation omitted). 11 In addition, the fact that a case raises serious First Amendment questions compels a finding that there exists'the potential for irreparable injury, or that at the very least the balance of hardships tips sharply in [favor of the party alleging First Amendment injury]' Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 303 F.3d 959, 973 (9th Cir.2002) (citations omitted).