Page:Volokh v. James.pdf/6

 equities tips in the party’s favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” ACLU v. Clapper, 804 F.3d 617, 622 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). However, “a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Sussman v. Crawford, 488 F.3d 136, 139 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 728 F. Supp. 2d 462, 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are among the most drastic tools in the arsenal of judicial remedies, and must be used with great care.”) (internal citations omitted).


 * I. Irreparable Harm

Although a showing of irreparable harm is typically the “single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction,” ''Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted), “[c]onsideration of the merits is virtually indispensable in the First Amendment context, where the likelihood of success on the merits is the dominant, if not the dispositive, factor.” N.Y. Progress and Prot. PAC v. Walsh'', 733 F.3d 483, 488 (2d Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the Court’s analysis will focus on the second prong of the preliminary injunction analysis.
 * II. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Where, as is the case here, the injunction being sought will provide the plaintiff with substantially all the relief sought in the complaint, the plaintiff must demonstrate a “clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Yang v. Kosinski, 960 F.3d 119, 127–28 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal citations and quotations omitted).