Recent rulings from federal district courts have brought to light the inconsistencies and challenges inherent in the current system for issuing preliminary relief. A decision to pause the Office of Management and Budget’s federal funding freeze highlights the courts’ willingness to engage in political disputes between Congress and the presidency. However, unlike these cases, everyday citizens and small businesses frequently find themselves denied similar preliminary relief when confronting government actions.
The legal framework allows for preliminary injunctions in extraordinary circumstances to maintain the status quo while a case proceeds. To succeed, plaintiffs must demonstrate a likely case success, irreparable harm without the injunction, and favorable equities and public interest. Yet, obtaining such relief is particularly arduous for smaller entities presenting constitutional claims against governmental entities. For instance, in Axon Enterprises, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, the Supreme Court acknowledged the harm of being subjected to potentially unconstitutional adjudication processes, arguing that respondents could challenge the process before enduring it.
Not all courts have adopted this perspective. Several circuit courts, including those in the Tenth Circuit and other jurisdictions, have taken the position that the harm of undergoing an unconstitutional process is not sufficient to warrant preliminary injunctions. Moreover, in certain regions like the Third Circuit, winning a preliminary injunction proving even tougher in recent cases; notably, the court’s decision in Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, Inc. v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security underscored the high threshold plaintiffs must meet.
Such differential treatment is evident in cases involving major business entities versus smaller businesses. While prominent corporations have successfully secured preliminary injunctions against federal actions, smaller businesses like the tree care company in AT’s Tree Services, LLC v. FTC faced rejection even when similar harm arguments were made. These discrepancies lead to an unpredictable judicial landscape concerning preliminary relief.
Ultimately, the system’s inconsistencies call into question the equitable delivery of preliminary relief. The variability in granting such injunctions, particularly within the realm of separation of powers, suggests a need for a more coherent approach. Advocacy is growing for the Supreme Court’s intervention to address these disparities and ensure fair access to preliminary relief remedies across the nation.