Opinion ID: 148165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Permanent Injunction Standard

Text: This appeal differs from the last time we heard this case in that we are reviewing the district court's grant of a permanent injunction rather than a preliminary injunction. In evaluating a district court's grant of a permanent injunction, we review its factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard, its legal conclusions de novo, and the scope of injunctive relief under an abuse of discretion standard. Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Baird, 438 F.3d 595, 602 (6th Cir.2006). In general, [t]he standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with the exception that [for a preliminary injunction] the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual success. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987) (internal citations omitted). In the context of this case, a party is entitled to a permament injunction if it can establish that it suffered a constitutional violation and will suffer `continuing irreparable injury' for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Baird, 438 F.3d at 602 (citing Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1067 (6th Cir.1998)).