Page:Washington v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (E.D. Wash. 2023).pdf/22

 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). Given this determination, the Court finds it unnecessary to address the other arguments regarding the individual ETASU currently in place. See ECF No. 3 at 21.
 * B.Irreparable Harm

Plaintiffs assert they will suffer irreparable harm from the 2023 REMS in at least three ways: (1) financial costs on Plaintiffs that cannot be compensated, (2) burdens on Plaintiffs’ institutions and providers who provide abortion care, and (3) harm to the health and well-being of patients and providers “by aggravating the ongoing crisis of reduced access to abortion care.” ECF No. 3 at 29.

A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (emphasis in original). “Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with [the Supreme Court’s] characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. “Irreparable harm is traditionally defined as harm for which there is no adequate legal remedy, such as an award of damages.” Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). A court may imply a lack of irreparable harm where there is no “speedy action” and a plaintiff sleeps on its rights. ''Lydo Enters. v. City of Las Vegas'', 745 F.2d 1211, 1213 (9th Cir. 1984).