Judge Amit Meha of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a request for an injunction to stop Sunday’s UFC White House event. Citing that the request came too late, the amount of time and money spent was immense and that the harms alleged were general, not specific.
The lawsuit was brought by two Virginia residents who claimed aesthetic harm to the Lincoln Memorial and the White House for the UFC holding an event on the South Lawn.
A party moving for an injunction, especially in this late stage, must make four showings: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of emergency relief, (3) the balance of equities supports emergency relief, and (4) emergency relief is in the public interest.
The Court Order decided that the plaintiffs’ alleged harm was too specific to meet the threshold for an injunction. Therefore, the likelihood of success on the merits were negligible.
And while Plaintiffs claimed that there were procedural issues, the Court indicated that without a concrete injury, it would not address the procedural issues.
The Court also discounts the Plaintiffs’ claims that there would they suffer from irreparable harm if the event were to go forward. “Plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay in filing suit, though not dispositive, undercuts their claims
of irreparable harm.” It notes that the late nature of the lawsuit reveals the lack of a “clear and present need” for equitable relief. While the Plaintiffs indicated that they did not know of the “claw” until it was erected, the Court notes that their claims of aesthetic injury likely occurred prior to the date of the claw installation.
With respect to the balance of equities and if an injunction would be in the public interest, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ arguments. It noted that the Plaintifss may not have legitimate standing (a right to sue)
The Court also noted the money expended by the UFC was something it factored when determining the public interest. “The potential loss of those dollars resulting from a last-minute, court-ordered stoppage cannot be ignored,” wrote the Court.
Payout Perspective:
It was a long-shot for this injunction to be imposed yet it did bring to light the lack of oversight that is occurring within the government. Why file it? It spells out the inherent problems with holding a for-profit event in a public space. If the lawsuit had been filed earlier on in the process, the Plaintiffs could have been responsible for posting a bond (putting up money) and the matter would have died down without any press prior to this event.
Leave a Reply