Opinion ID: 4553022
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Irreparable Harm to the Plaintiffs

Text: The second preliminary injunction factor under Winter requires the Plaintiffs to show they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. 555 U.S. at 20. “Irreparable harm is injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent and that cannot be remedied by an award of monetary damages.” New York ex rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638, 660 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have already discussed the Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries in evaluating their standing to challenge the Rule and both the States and Organizations point to largely similar harms to 97 establish this injunctive factor. See League of Women Voters of the United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 9 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (looking to same injuries to establish standing and irreparable harm). The States contend that the implementation of the Rule will result in reduced Medicaid revenue and federal funding and a greater number of uninsured patients seeking care, putting public hospitals that are already insufficiently funded at risk of closure. See, e.g., N.Y. J. App. 512-13. Additionally, as the administrators of the benefits programs at issue, the States allege that they will be required to undertake costly revisions to their eligibility systems to ensure that non-citizens are not automatically made eligible for or enrolled in benefits they may no longer wish to receive after the Rule’s implementation. See, e.g., N.Y. J. App. 236, 381-82. The Organizations point to the economic harms of expending funds to mitigate the impact of the Rule on the communities they serve. See, e.g., M.T.R. J. App. 466-67. As noted, DHS predicted that the Rule would have economic harms, and the Rule has already had a chilling effect on non-citizen use of public benefits. See supra Section I.A. These injuries claimed by the States and the Organizations are actual and imminent. Moreover, because money damages are prohibited in APA actions, they are irreparable. See 5 U.S.C. § 702; Ward v. 98 Brown, 22 F.3d 516, 520 (2d Cir. 1994). We thus conclude that the Plaintiffs have established the second factor of the preliminary injunction standard.38