” Finch v. Treto, 82 F.4th 572, 578 (7th Cir. 2023) (quoting Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539, 544 (7th Cir. 2021)). “For a preliminary injunction to issue, a plaintiff ‘must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.'” A.C. v. Metro. Sch. Dist. of Martinsville, 75 F.4th 760, 766-67 (7th Cir. 2023) (quoting Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)); see also Finch, 82 F.4th at 578 (“To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show that (1) he has some likelihood of success on the merits of his claim; (2) traditional legal remedies are inadequate; and (3) he would suffer irreparable harm without preliminary injunctive relief.”)
” Finch v. Treto, 82 F.4th 572, 578 (7th Cir. 2023) (quoting Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539, 544 (7th Cir. 2021))
An appeal becomes moot if an intervening event precludes any effectual relief in favor of the appellant. Finch v. Treto, 82 F.4th 572, 578 (7th Cir. 2023); see also Orion Sales, Inc. v. Emerson Radio Corp., 148 F.3d 840, 843 (7th Cir. 1998) ("[T]he case itself has not become moot, only the preliminary injunction under appeal has ... .").
“To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show that (1) [s]he has some likelihood of success on the merits of [her] claim; (2) traditional legal remedies are inadequate; and (3) [s]he would suffer irreparable harm without preliminary injunctive relief.” Finch v. Treto, 82 F.4th 572, 578 (7th Cir. 2023).
” Finch v. Treto, 82 F.4th 572, 578 (7th Cir. 2023). To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show (1) that it has some likelihood of success on the merits of its claim; (2) that it has no adequate remedy at law, and (3) that without preliminary injunctive relief, it would suffer irreparable harm.
A preliminary injunction is "an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it." Finch v. Treto, 82 F.4th 572, 578 (7th Cir. 2023) (quoting Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539, 544 (7th Cir. 2021)).
A preliminary injunction is "an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it." Finch v. Treto, 82 F.4th 572, 578 (7th Cir. 2023) (quoting Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539, 544 (7th Cir. 2021)). The purpose of a preliminary injunction is "preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held."
Compare Brinkmeyer v. Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Bd., 2023 WL 1798173, at *11 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 7, 2023) ("The dormant Commerce Clause does not apply to federally illegal markets, including Washington's cannabis market and, thus, it does not apply to Washington's residency requirements.") and Peridot Tree WA Inc. v. Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Ctrl. Bd., 2024 WL 69733, at *9 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 5, 2024) ("Peridot cannot use the dormant Commerce Clause to demand a constitutional right to participate in an illegal interstate market."), with Finch v. Treto, 606 F. Supp. 3d 811, 834 (N.D. Ill. 2022), aff'd in part, denied in part on other grounds, 82 F.4th 572 (7th Cir. 2023) (concluding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their dormant Commerce Clause claim alleging that Illinois "discriminat[es] against nonresidents in awarding conditional dispensary licenses"). We recite these decisions not to provide merits-based guidance to the district court, but merely to affirm that federal courts can, and do, resolve similar claims without abstaining in favor of state-court adjudication.
If the movant establishes those threshold requirements, the Court must "balance the equities, weighing the harm to the moving party if the requested injunction is denied against the harm to the nonmoving party and the public- including third parties-if it is granted." Finch v. Treto, 82 F.4th 572, 578 (7th Cir. 2023).
" Finch v. Treto, 82 F.4th 572, 578 (7th Cir. 2023).