S. 968, 972 (1997)
The Court may issue interim injunctive relief only when the movant demonstrates ” that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits, that [they are] likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [his or her] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter season v. Pure Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Cf. Benten v. Kessler, 505 U.S. 1084, 1085 (1992) (per curiam). Indeed, absent a “substantial indication” of likely success on the merits, “there would be no justification for the court’s intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review.” Was. Bankers Ass’n v. , 38 F. Supp. 2d 114, 140 (D.D.C. 1999) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Nat’l Borrowing from the bank Partnership Admin
The other critical factor in the injunctive relief analysis is irreparable injury. A movant must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (citing La v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 (1983)). If the plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, the court “must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987).
“The four factors have typically been evaluated on a “‘sliding scale.'” Davis v. PBGC, 571 F.3d 1288, 1291-92 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Under this approach, “[i]f the movant makes an unusually strong showing on one of the factors, then it does not necessarily have to make as strong a showing on another factor.” Id. While there is some doubt as to whether the sliding scale approach is still appropriate after the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter, it remains good law in this Circuit. Find League of women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, courts should grant such relief sparingly. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U. The Supreme Court has observed “that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Id. Therefore, although the trial court has the discretion to issue or deny a preliminary injunction, it is not a form of relief to be granted lightly. In addition, any injunction that the court issues must be carefully circumscribed and “tailored to remedy the harm shown.” Nat’l Treasury Team Union v. Yeutter, 918 F.2d 968, 977 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
A movant may show a likelihood of success on the merits by demonstrating that it is “more likely than not” that she will prevail. Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 398 (D.C. Cir. 2011). However, under the sliding scale approach, if the other preliminary injunction factors strongly favor the movant, the movant need only show the existence of a “serious legal question” on the merits. Id. at 398.
In CFSA We, the Court expressly laid out the necessary elements of Plaintiffs’ due process claims, brought under the so-called “stigma-plus rule” of Paul v. Davis. 132 F. Supp. 3d at 123 (citing Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 708 (1976) and Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 610 F.3d 110, 121 (D.C. Cir. 2010)). Under the stigma-plus rule there is a due process violation if the plaintiff can show, “in addition to reputational harm, that (1) the government has deprived them of some benefit to which they have a legal right . . . or (2) the government-imposed stigma is so severe that it ‘broadly precludes’ plaintiffs from pursuing ‘a chosen trade or business.'” Id. (quoting Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. at 708).