Jump to full article: Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2009-11-05
Intro: The question before the Court is whether Plaintiffs have met their burden of
showing the need for the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction against
enforcement of the MRTP provision. Tennessee Scrap Recyclers Ass’n v. Bredesen, 556
F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2009). In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction,
courts consider four factors: (a) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on
the merits; (b) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction;
(c) whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (d)
whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of the injunction. . . .
Assuming that the MRTP provision implicates the First Amendment, it seems
likely that its restrictions on speech are constitutionally permissible. . . .
In sum, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have little likelihood of success on the
merits of their facial First Amendment challenge to the MRTP provision except on the
theory that it operates as a prior restraint on speech and lacks a reasonable time limit for
FDA review. . . .
Having considered each of the required factors, the Court finds that the
“extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction is unwarranted.
29
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.
Jump to full article » |