Case Citator › Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
555 U.S. 7
Decided
Confirmed treatments
6
Flagged citations read
890 of 890
Citing cases (total)
11,959
Treatment dates
2009–2022
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. All 890 flagged citations to Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. have been read. Six courts limited its reach in the ways listed below, chiefly by allowing a serious-questions route to an injunction or by adapting the test for a stay.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court later held that Winter does govern interim relief under the National Labor Relations Act, ending the exception described in Chester ex rel. NLRB v. Grane Healthcare Co.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

11,959 later cases cite Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.; 890 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The court held that Winter did not foreclose an injunction based on serious merits questions and likely irreparable injury without a finding of likely success on the merits.

    Save Strawberry Canyon v. Department of Energy · Northern District of California · filed

    In Winter the Supreme Court rejected the first prong but did not address the second. ... The second prong is relevant where irreparable injury is likely and imminent ... Winter does not foreclose injunctive relief in such situations.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Third Circuit declined to extend Winter's general preliminary-injunction requirements to interim relief under § 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act; the Supreme Court later ended this exception.

    Chester ex rel. NLRB v. Grane Healthcare Co. · Third Circuit · filed

    In light of the purposes behind this provision and the Act, we believe that the holdings in Romero-Barcelo and Winter do not extend to the § 10(j) context.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court declined to require a likely win on appeal before staying its own disclosure order to preserve appellate review.

    Shapiro v. Department of Justice · District of Columbia District Court · filed

    After Winter, though, some judges on the D.C. Circuit have expressed skepticism about the continuing vitality of this sliding-scale approach ... The Court doubts that the Supreme Court intended to put a putative appellant to such a burden in order to prevent the district court’s order from mooting the opportunity for appellate review of that order ... the Court concludes that there is a substantial question for appeal, and that in this context, it makes little sense to make the issuance of a stay contingent on the Court’s determination that its own ruling was likely wrong.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The district court held that Winter did not displace the Ninth Circuit's serious-questions alternative to showing likely success on the merits.

    Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC v. Sayler · District of Oregon · filed

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Winter, however, did not disturb the Ninth Circuit’s alternative “serious questions” test. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cotérell, 632 I'.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). Under this test, “serious questions going to the merits’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court granted preliminary relief after finding serious merits questions and a favorable balance of hardships, using that path as an alternative to Winter's likely-success requirement.

    McDonald v. Williams · District of Nevada · filed

    A preliminary injunction may also issue under the “serious questions” ... continued viability of this doctrine post-Winter ... The Court finds that Plaintiff has raised serious questions going to the merits ... the balance of hardships tips in his favor.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court granted a preliminary injunction based on serious merits questions, treating that path as available after Winter without finding likely success on the merits.

    SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. PHH Mortgage Corp. · District of Nevada · filed

    A preliminary injunction may also issue under the “serious questions” test. ... continued viability of this doctrine post-Winter.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace