Trump v. Cook · ¶163
The Court now reads the categorical statements in our precedents to apply to only “fina[l]” injunctive relief, not “interim” injunctive relief. Ante, at 16. The Court’s newfound distinction does not make sense. “The standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction.” Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U. S. 531, 546, n. 12 (1987); accord, Winter v. Natural Re sources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 32 (2008). Interim injunctive relief is still an exercise of “jurisdiction” in “equity,” so it does not reach “the removal of public officers.” In re Sawyer, 124 U. S., at 210. The Court’s distinction is also foreclosed by our own precedent, which holds that “the authority to issue interim injunctive relief . . . was held lacking in cases such as White v. Berry.” Sampson v. Mur ray, 415 U. S. 61, 72 (1974) (emphasis added). White and Sawyer…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.