Opinion ID: 4531916
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Balance of Harms and Public Interest

Text: The final two factors are the balance of harms and the public interest. See Nken, 556 U.S. at 426. Here, both those factors weigh in favor of a stay. The district court found that because the inmates “face immediate, irreparable harm from COVID-19,” their risk of harm outweighs the harm imposed on the defendants from complying with the preliminary injunction. But the question is not whether COVID-19 presents a danger to the inmates—we do not dismiss the risk of harm that COVID-19 poses to everyone, including the inmates at Metro West. The question is instead whether the plaintiffs have shown that they will suffer irreparable injuries that they would not otherwise suffer in the absence of an injunction. See id.; cf. Valentine, 2020 WL 1934431, at . Nothing in the record indicates that the defendants will abandon the current safety measures absent a preliminary injunction, especially since the defendants implemented many 14 Case: 20-11622 Date Filed: 05/05/2020 Page: 15 of 20 of those measures before the plaintiffs even filed the complaint. Nor do the plaintiffs contend that they will abandon those measures. For that reason, the balance of harms weighs in the defendants’ favor. Finally, where the government is the party opposing the preliminary injunction, its interest and harm merge with the public interest. Nken, 556 U.S. at 435. We therefore conclude that the defendants have satisfied all four requirements for a stay.