injunction

An injunction is a court order that directs a person to do something or to stop doing something. It is an equitable remedy issued in situations where monetary compensation would be inadequate, typically to prevent irreparable harm. Courts have discretion to grant or deny this remedy, and must consider the facts and balance the relative harms to the parties involved.

There are three primary forms of injunctions: temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions. Anyone who knowingly violates an injunction may be held in contempt of court, which can result in criminal or civil liability.

Temporary Restraining Orders

A temporary restraining order, or TRO, is a short-term measure intended to preserve the status quo until a more formal hearing can be held. It may be issued without notice to the opposing party and usually expires after ten days unless extended. TROs are often used in urgent situations, such as to prevent harassment or to stop the destruction of property.

Preliminary Injunctions

Preliminary injunctions last longer than TROs and are generally issued after notice and a court hearing. When deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, courts typically consider whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, whether that harm outweighs the potential harm to the defendant, and whether granting the injunction serves the public interest. Some courts use a slightly different standard, requiring either a showing of probable success and possible irreparable injury, or serious legal questions and a balance of hardships.

Permanent Injunctions

A permanent injunction is granted as part of a final judgment. To obtain an injunction, plaintiffs must show that they have suffered irreparable harm, that legal remedies such as monetary damages are inadequate, that the balance of hardships favors them, and that the injunction would not disserve the public interest. These principles were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange. Courts also consider equitable factors such as the parties’ good faith or prior conduct when fashioning the remedy. In Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., for example, the Court declined to issue a permanent injunction due to the defendant’s significant investment and the lack of practical alternatives, even though a nuisance was proven. Similarly, in Penland v. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Serv. Dist., the Court adjusted its order based on the defendant’s efforts to abate the harm.

In Trump v. CASA (2025), the United States Supreme Court limited the scope of equitable relief in federal courts. The Court held that nationwide or universal injunctions, which block enforcement of a law or executive action against nonparties, are likely not authorized under the Judiciary Act of 1789. As a result, federal courts may only issue injunctions that apply to the parties actually before them, unless Congress explicitly authorizes broader relief. Although the case did not decide the merits of the underlying policy, it marked a clear shift away from the practice of issuing injunctions with universal effect. This decision reinforces the principle that equitable relief must be narrowly tailored to the specific legal injury at issue.

Federal Material

[Last reviewed in June of 2025 by the Wex Definitions Team]

Wex