Case 1:23-cv-03026-TOR ECF No. 80 filed 04/07/23 PageID.2185 Page 24 of 31
in light of the Dobbs decision[1] until January 2023. ECF No. 60 at 15–16; see also ECF No. 78 at 9. This is a complex case with 18 Plaintiffs. The Court finds Plaintiffs’ less than two-month delay from the FDA approval minimal considering the record and issues in this case. Lydo, 745 F.2d at 1213. Accordingly, these are not bases to deny preliminary relief based on the lack of irreparable harm. Plaintiffs have satisfied this element.
- C. Balancing of Equities and Public Interest
Plaintiffs assert that the equities and public interest weigh strongly in their favor where the public’s health is at stake. ECF No. 3 at 36.
When the government is a party to a case in which a preliminary injunction is sought, the balance of the equities and public interest factors merge. Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014). The public’s interest in health care favors a preliminary injunction where the agency’s action likely “results in worse health outcomes.” New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 969 F.3d 42, 87 (2d Cir. 2020).
Plaintiffs contend the public has an interest in access to safe and effective medicine for those who terminate their pregnancies. ECF No. 3 at 36. Defendants contend the public interest is “best served by deferring to FDA’s judgments about
- ↑ Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022).
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ~ 24
