plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and brief in - maldef
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and brief in - maldef
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and brief in - maldef
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case 5:07-cv-00549-FB Document 58 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 17 of 23<br />
716 F. Supp. 1475, 1479 (M.D. Ga. 1989) (strik<strong>in</strong>g down a Georgia law that did not allow<br />
naturalized citizens to become state troopers); Huynh v. Carlucci, 679 F. Supp. 61, 66 (D.D.C.<br />
1988) (apply<strong>in</strong>g strict scrut<strong>in</strong>y <strong>and</strong> strik<strong>in</strong>g down a regulation that imposed stricter requirements<br />
on naturalized citizens to ga<strong>in</strong> Department of Defense security clearance).<br />
B. Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Injury if a Prelim<strong>in</strong>ary Injunction is Not<br />
Granted.<br />
It is well-settled that the violation of constitutional rights <strong>for</strong> even m<strong>in</strong>imal periods of<br />
time constitutes irreparable <strong>in</strong>jury justify<strong>in</strong>g the grant of <strong>prelim<strong>in</strong>ary</strong> <strong><strong>in</strong>junction</strong>. See Deerfield<br />
Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 1981) (cit<strong>in</strong>g, e.g., Elrod v.<br />
Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)); see also Mitchell v. Cuomo, 748 F.2d 804, 806 (2d Cir. 1984)<br />
("[A]n alleged constitutional <strong>in</strong>fr<strong>in</strong>gement will often alone constitute irreparable harm."). For<br />
purposes of <strong>in</strong>junctive relief, an <strong>in</strong>jury is also “irreparable” if it cannot be undone through<br />
monetary remedies. Spiegel v. City of Houston, 636 F.2d 997, 1002 (5th Cir. 1981); Parks v.<br />
Dunlop, 517 F.2d 785, 787 (5th Cir. 1975). Monetary damages cannot compensate <strong>for</strong> “the loss<br />
of <strong>in</strong>tangible rights that cannot be bought or sold <strong>in</strong> the marketplace.” Nobby Lobby, Inc. v. City<br />
of Dallas, 767 F. Supp. 801, 821 (N.D. Tex. 1991); see also Dearmore v. City of Garl<strong>and</strong>, 400 F.<br />
Supp.2d 894, 905 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (“[C]onstitutional violations should be enjo<strong>in</strong>ed as soon as<br />
practicable; otherwise, the Constitution is of little value.”). There<strong>for</strong>e, no further show<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
irreparable <strong>in</strong>jury is necessary where a constitutional deprivation is <strong>in</strong>volved. Louisiana Seafood<br />
Mgm’t Council, Inc. v. Foster, 917 F. Supp. 439, 442 n.1 (E.D. La. 1996) (quot<strong>in</strong>g 11A Charles<br />
A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice <strong>and</strong> Procedure § 2948:1, 160-61<br />
(1995)).<br />
17