Injunctions: Can Laws Be Made With Them?

An injunction is a court order that requires a person or entity to either start or stop performing a specific action. Injunctions are typically granted in cases where monetary compensation is deemed insufficient to remedy the harm caused. They can be temporary, preliminary, or permanent, and are often used to prevent future violations of the law, such as patent infringement or the violation of a constitutional right. Injunctions can also be used to address past violations, such as requiring the clean-up of an oil spill. The decision to grant an injunction is made by a court, which balances the potential harm to the plaintiff and defendant, as well as the public interest. Injunctions have been used in notable cases, such as the request for Elon Musk to be compelled to purchase Twitter. The legality of certain types of injunctions, such as nationwide injunctions, is still debated.

Characteristics of an Injunction

Injunctions in US law

In the US, an injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or refrain from doing a specific action. Injunctions are given in many different types of cases, from prohibiting future violations of the law, such as patent infringement or the violation of a constitutional right, to requiring the defendant to repair past violations of the law.

There are three types of injunctions: permanent injunctions, temporary restraining orders, and preliminary injunctions. A temporary restraining order is a short-term measure in effect until the court is able to issue something more enduring, such as a preliminary injunction. For example, a temporary restraining order can be issued without notice by a federal court, but cannot exceed ten days without additional court proceedings.

In balancing the damages to the plaintiff and the defendant, as well as the public interest, the courts weigh the relative harm and benefit to both parties if the injunction is granted. To seek a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must pass a four-step test:

• That the plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury
• That remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for the injury
• That the remedy in equity is warranted upon consideration of the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant
• That the permanent injunction being sought would not hurt public interest

Injunctions remain widely used to require government officials to comply with the Constitution and are frequently used in private law disputes about intellectual property, real property, and contracts. Many state and federal statutes, including environmental statutes, civil rights statutes, and employment discrimination statutes, are enforced with injunctions.

The rise in nationwide injunctions is likely a response to other changes in the legal and political system. Over the last 50-plus years, the federal government has taken a more active role in regulating the economy, the environment, civil rights, healthcare, education, crime, and immigration. At the same time, courts have increasingly allowed organizations to challenge federal laws on behalf of their members and states to do so on behalf of their citizens.

Injunctions in English law

In English law, an injunction is a special court order compelling a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. It is an equitable remedy that was developed by the English courts of equity, but its origins can be traced back to Roman law and the equitable remedy of the "interdict".

Injunctions are commonly used in cases involving significant matters of nuisance, privacy, and libel (reputational damage). They are also frequently employed in major disputes over employment, agency, distribution, trust, and property. In such cases, interim, interlocutory injunctions may be imposed pending settlement or final hearing, particularly when there is a clear and present danger that the matter in dispute will be wholly frustrated if the injunction is not imposed. A final hearing may result in a final injunction, which may be equivalent to undertakings given in a legally binding settlement document.

A prohibitory injunction, for instance, prevents an individual or group from beginning or continuing an action that threatens or breaches the legal rights of another. This type of injunction can be used to protect confidential information obtained in a commercial relationship. Injunctions can also be used to require government officials to comply with the Constitution and are often used in private law disputes about intellectual property, real property, and contracts.

To obtain an interim injunction, the applicant must establish that they are likely to succeed on the merits and that they are likely to suffer severe harm in the absence of preliminary relief. The applicant must also demonstrate that the injunction is in the public interest. Furthermore, the applicant and their solicitors must make a fair presentation to the court of the material facts and relevant law pertaining to the application. The court will expect a high standard of conduct and disclosure, and the applicant will usually be required to give certain undertakings, including an undertaking in damages.

In deciding whether to issue an injunction, courts typically employ a balancing test. For a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must satisfy a four-step test: (1) they have suffered an irreparable injury; (2) remedies at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate; (3) the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant warrants equitable relief; and (4) the injunction would not hurt the public interest. The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief rests with the court, which exercises its discretionary power in balancing the interests of both parties.

Temporary vs. permanent injunctions

An injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action. There are three types of injunctions: permanent injunctions, temporary restraining orders, and preliminary injunctions.

A temporary injunction is a court order issued to prevent someone from doing something immediately, usually while a lawsuit or legal action is ongoing. It is a temporary measure often used in emergencies to prevent imminent harm or damage to a person or entity until a final decision can be reached. It is a provisional measure that provides immediate relief and lasts only until the court reaches a final decision on the matter. Temporary injunctions are issued at the discretion of the court and can be issued early in a lawsuit to stop the defendant from continuing their allegedly harmful actions.

A permanent injunction, on the other hand, is a final and binding court order issued at the end of a legal proceeding. It permanently prevents someone from engaging in a certain activity or behaviour deemed unlawful or harmful. It is issued as a final judgment in a case where monetary damages will not suffice. A permanent injunction may be granted after a trial or settlement agreement and remains in effect indefinitely.

The main difference between temporary and permanent injunctions is their duration and the stage of the legal process at which they are granted. To obtain a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must pass a four-step test, demonstrating irreparable injury, inadequacy of legal remedies, the balance of hardships, and that the injunction would not hurt public interest.

In some cases, both temporary and permanent injunctions may be necessary. For example, in situations involving non-compete and non-solicitation agreements, intellectual property disputes, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, shareholder disputes, and mergers and acquisitions.

In summary, temporary and permanent injunctions are powerful legal tools used to safeguard individuals, businesses, and organisations from imminent harm or unlawful activities. They serve as a critical means of protection until a final decision can be reached or as a final resolution to a legal matter.

The legality of nationwide injunctions

The concept of a nationwide injunction has been the subject of much debate in recent years, with critics arguing that it encourages forum-shopping, inhibits the development of law, and politicizes the judiciary. On the other hand, supporters argue that it is a critical check on executive authority, which has expanded under various presidents.

A nationwide injunction is a court order that blocks a government policy from being enforced not just against specific parties in a case but also against anyone else across the nation. In recent years, lower federal courts in the US have issued several such injunctions, targeting policies under both Democratic and Republican administrations. This has sparked a unique and bipartisan debate over their legality.

The constitutionality of nationwide injunctions is a complex issue. Proponents of nationwide injunctions argue that Article III of the Constitution does not explicitly define "the judicial Power," implying that federal courts have the flexibility to develop and refine their remedial powers over time. Thus, nationwide injunctions can be seen as an evolution of judicial power. Additionally, in certain cases, it may be impractical to issue a patchwork of injunctions that vary across states, especially when dealing with issues like air and water pollution or immigration, where uniformity is essential.

However, critics argue that nationwide injunctions exceed the constitutional limitations on judicial power and deviate from the historical exercise of equitable power. They contend that these injunctions impede the reasoned discussion of legal issues among lower courts and interfere with the decision-making processes of elected officials. Furthermore, the rapid rise in nationwide injunctions has been attributed to changes in the legal and political system, with the federal government taking a more active role in various policy areas, and courts allowing organizations and states to challenge federal laws on behalf of their members and citizens.

In conclusion, the legality of nationwide injunctions remains a contentious issue, with valid arguments on both sides. While nationwide injunctions offer a powerful tool to check executive authority, they also raise concerns about judicial overreach and interference with the legislative process. The impact of nationwide injunctions on the development of law and the potential for forum-shopping are further considerations that contribute to the ongoing debate surrounding their legality.

The process of obtaining a preliminary injunction

A preliminary injunction is a court order that may be granted before or during a trial to preserve the status quo before the final judgment. It is a discretionary power of the court, which balances the potential harm and the inadequacy of damages without an injunction against the damages that would occur if an injunction were granted.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case and that they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued. This requires evidence of "a real and immediate threat of future injury by the defendant". The plaintiff must also show that the balance of equities and hardships is in their favour. This involves considering the plaintiff's interest in obtaining an injunction and the burden that an injunction would place on the defendant.

In addition, judges will consider the extent of the irreparable harm, each party's likelihood of prevailing at trial, and any other public or private interests implicated by the injunction. For example, in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Supreme Court described the balancing test for whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate. The court must examine whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and whether they are likely to suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.

Parties may appeal the judge's decision to deny an injunction through an interlocutory appeal. In federal courts, preliminary injunctions are governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which establishes rules regarding temporary injunctions and sets specific requirements for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders (TROs). State rules regarding preliminary injunctions vary.

Frequently asked questions