Those four familiar factors are: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo ex rel. [...] That is enough[;] Houston has frequently visited the area near the store in the past and will maintain the same frequency in the future.” (cleaned up)). [...] In the Eleventh Circuit’s view, however, “[t]his argument—that the offset provision is clear—goes to the merits of the States’ claims, not their standing to raise them.” Ibid. [...] “When we assess standing,” the court explained, “we ‘must be careful not to decide the questions on the merits for or against the plaintiff, and must therefore assume that on the merits the plaintiffs would be successful in their claims.’” Ibid. [...] Applying this principle, the Circuit came to the same conclusion we reach here: Reviewing the text of the statute for standing purposes, we believe the States have shown that the offset provision arguably proscribes their conduct.
Authors
- Pages
- 40
- Published in
- United States of America
