FRCP · Rule 65

FRCP Rule 65

Quick Answer

What is FRCP Rule 65?

Rule 65 governs the issuance of preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm before a trial concludes.

Source: FRCP Rule 65

Official Text
Rule 65 allows a plaintiff to seek a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent a party from acting in a manner that poses a significant harmful threat, with the injunction typically assessed through a consideration of likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
Plain Language

FRCP Rule 65 allows individuals or entities to request a court order that prevents someone from taking specific actions during the time a legal case is ongoing. It's often used to protect parties from potential harm until the case is fully decided.

Purpose

The purpose of Rule 65 is to provide a mechanism for parties to seek immediate relief from harm that could occur before a final ruling can be made. This ensures that rights or interests are preserved while legal proceedings are pending.

Key Provisions

Subsection (a): Preliminary Injunctions

This subsection outlines the requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction, which includes demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits and the potential for irreparable harm.

Subsection (b): Temporary Restraining Orders

This provision governs the issuance of a TRO, which can be granted without notice to the other party in certain urgent situations. It details the duration and conditions under which a TRO can be issued.

Practice Notes
  • Ensure that you gather strong evidence and demonstrate both likelihood of success and irreparable harm when seeking a preliminary injunction.
  • When applying for a TRO, be prepared to justify why notice to the opposing party should be waived, as current standards require demonstrable urgency.
  • Remember that both preliminary injunctions and TROs are typically considered extraordinary remedies, and courts may be hesitant to grant them without compelling evidence.
Landmark Cases

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

This case clarified the standards for issuing a preliminary injunction, particularly emphasizing the need for demonstrating both irreparable harm and balance of harms.

Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc.

Established a four-factor test for preliminary injunctions, highlighting the importance of assessing the likelihood of success on the merits and the threat of irreparable harm.

Common Motions
  • Motion for Preliminary Injunction
  • Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Exam Tip

In exams, focus on the criteria for granting a preliminary injunction and TRO, as well as the implications of each type. Be prepared for hypotheticals that require you to apply the standards set forth in Rule 65.

Related Rules
  • frcp-rule-62
  • frcp-rule-81

Master Federal Rules with Briefly

Get AI-powered study tools, practice questions, and comprehensive legal resources.