green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
34.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2024–2025 ·
…injunctions will not issue to prevent injuries neither extant nor presently threatened, but only merely feared.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 44 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Peta v. U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture
But cf. *157 Comm. in Solidarity with People of El Salvador (CISPES) v. Sessions , 929 F.2d 742 , 744-45 (D.C.
discussed
Cited "but see"
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. AGRI
But cf. Comm. in Solidarity with People of El Salvador (CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742 , 744–45 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Media Matters for America v. FTC
injunctions will not issue to prevent injuries neither extant nor presently threatened, but only merely feared.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
An opinion was released in case 24-5205, KalshiEX LLC v. CFTC
injunctions will not issue to prevent injuries neither extant nor presently threatened, but only merely feared.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yacoub v. Blinken
A “court may appropriately dispose of a case under 12(b)(1) on mootness grounds.” Mykonos v. United States, 59 F.Supp.3d 100 , 103–04 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing Comm. in Solidarity with the People of El Sal. v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sayad v. United States Department of Homeland Security
Finally, a “court may appropriately dispose of a case under 12(b)(1) on mootness grounds.” Mykonos v. United States, 59 F. Supp. 3d 100 , 103–04 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing Comm. in Solidarity with the People of El Sal. v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adams v. Dole
Adams, yet puts all the burden on Adams”). 1 See Comm. in Solidarity With People of El Salvador (CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 743 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Florida Eb5 Investments, LLC v. Wolf
(CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (O.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
P.K. v. Tillerson
Finally, a “‘court may appropriately dispose of a case under 12(b)(1) on mootness grounds.” Mykonos v. United States, 59 F. Supp. 3d 100 , 103–04 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing Comm. in Solidarity with the People of El Sal. v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
AARP v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
“In short, the threatened injury must be of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm, because injunctions are not intended ‘to prevent injuries neither extant nor presently threatened, but only merely feared.’ ” Newdow, 355 F.Supp.2d at 291 -92 (quoting Comm. in Solidarity v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
La Botz v. Federal Election Commission of Washington, D.C.
J.F. v. District of Columbia, 437 F.Supp.2d 22, 27 (D.D.C.2006); Toxco, Inc. *28 v. Chu, 801 F.Supp.2d 1, 5 (D.D.C.2011) (“Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party may move to dismiss a case on grounds of mootness.”) (citing Comm. in Solidarity with People of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744-45 (D.C.Cir.1991)); see also Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. U.S., 570 F.3d 316, 321 (D.C.Cir.2009) (reviewing de novo district court’s dismissal of case on mootness grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)). 2.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mykonos v. United States of America
Moreover, “[a] court may appropriately dispose of a case *104 under 12(b)(1) ... on mootness grounds.” Comm. in Solidarity with the People of El Sal. v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
Reply at 3-4,14-15, 37-38.) The Court acknowledges and accepts that some of the people who live in areas near the pipeline project are sincerely worried about the harm that an oil spill might cause. 18 As genuine as these concerns may be, Plaintiffs have not shown that a damaging oil spill is likely to occur, and it is bedrock law that injunctions “will not issue to prevent injuries neither extant nor presently threatened, but only merely feared.” Comm. in Solidarity With People of El Salvador (CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1991) (internal quotation marks and citations…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Spelman v. Chipman
(CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1991) (declining to issue injunctive relief “to prevent injuries neither *10 extant nor presently threatened, but only merely feared”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Aref v. Holder
Aref I, 774 F.Supp.2d at 159 -60 (citing Comm. in Solidarity with People of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.Cir.1991); Super Sack Mfg.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sweis v. United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
An injunction is not warranted when a movant alleges injuries “merely ‘feared.’ ” Comm. in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1991) (quoting Exxon Corp. v. F.T.C., 589 F.2d 582, 594 (D.C.Cir.1978)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Geo Specialty Chemicals, Incorporated v. Husisian
(CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1991) (“Injunctions ... will not issue to prevent injuries neither extant nor presently threatened, but only merely feared.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sibley v. Alexander
Moreover, “[a] court may appropriately dispose of a case under 12(b)(1) for standing,” Randolph, 486 F.Supp.2d at 5 , or on mootness grounds, see Comm, in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. De C.V.
Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674, and that no injunction is warranted when the plaintiff alleges “injuries neither extant nor presently threatened, but only merely ‘feared,’ ” see Comm. in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1991) (quoting Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 589 F.2d 582, 594 (D.C.Cir.1978)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re NAVY CHAPLAINCY
Comm, in Solidarity with People of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.Cir.1991); Super Sack Mfg.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Toxco Inc. v. Chu
Comm. in Solidarity with People of El Sal. v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
TOXCO, INC. v. Chu
Comm, in Solidarity with People of El Sal. v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.Cir.1991); Super Sack Mfg.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Aref v. Holder
Comm. in Solidarity with Peo *160 ple of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.Cir.1991); Super Sack Mfg.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Aref v. Holder
Comm. in Solidarity with People of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Westberg v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Comm. in Solidarity with People of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.Cir.1991); Super Sack Mfg.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Westberg v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Comm. in Solidarity with People of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Beattie v. Barnhart
(CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Beattie v. Barnhart
(CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1991) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United Government Security Officers of America International Union v. Service Employees International Union
(CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1991) (quoting Exxon Corp. v. Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United Government Security Officers of America International Union v. Service Employees International Union
(CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rumber v. District of Columbia
Comm. in Solidarity with People of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rumber v. District of Columbia
Comm, in Solidarity with People of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.Cir.1991); Super Sack Mfg.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
National Security Archive v. Central Intelligence Agency
Comm, in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744-45 (D.C.Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
O.K. v. Bush
Whether regarded as a prerequisite to a plaintiffs standing to seek injunctive relief, City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105, 110 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 , 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), or as a facet of the irreparable harm element of the preliminary injunction test, Comm. in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1991), the requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate a likelihood of injury in the imminent future in order to secure an injunction is a well-established rule of law.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Decatur Liquors, Inc. v. District of Columbia
See United States v. Wade, 152 F.3d 969, 970-71 (D.C.Cir.1998) (citing Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347 , 56 S.Ct. 466 , 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J. concurring) (“The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question ... if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.”)); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 , 89 S.Ct. 1944 , 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969) (doctrine of mootness requires courts to dismiss cases where the issues presented *75 are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome); Comm. in…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Association of Flight Attendants-CWA v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
May 11, 2005) (“[T]he threatened injury must be of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm, because injunctions are not intended ‘to prevent injuries neither extant nor presently threatened, but only merely feared.’ ”) (quoting Comm. in Solidarity v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.Cir. 1991)). 10 *102 With respect to AFA’s loss of leverage at the bargaining table, plaintiff correctly argues that courts have recognized that substantial infringements of collective bargaining power constitute irreparable harm.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Al-Anazi v. Bush
In short, the threatened injury must be of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm, because injunctions are not intended “to prevent injuries neither extant nor presently threatened, but only merely feared.” Comm. in Solidarity v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1991) (quotations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Newdow v. Bush
In short, the threatened injury must be of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equi *292 table relief to prevent irreparable harm, because injunctions are not intended “to prevent injuries neither extant nor presently threatened, but only merely ‘feared.’ ” Comm. in Solidarity v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1991) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sociedad Anonima Viña Santa Rita v. United States Department of the Treasury
Cf. Comm. in Solidarity with People of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1991) (injunctions are not available to litigants who seek “to prevent injuries neither extant nor presently threatened, but only feared”) (quoting Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 589 F.2d 582, 594 (D.C.Cir.1978)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zieper v. Reno
Where an allegedly unconstitutional investigation has come to a close, “[t]o pass judgment on its legality would be to render an advisory opinion unless there were current consequences.” Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Federation of Government Employees v. Brown
(2×)
Committee in Solidarity v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745 (D.C.Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris v. Bowser
Plaintiff’s unsupported assumption ignores that there is “well-settled case law . . . requir[ing] a court to presume that government officials will conduct themselves properly and in good faith. . . . ” In re Navy Chaplaincy, 850 F. Supp. 2d 86, 94 (D.D.C. 2012); see Committee in Solidarity with People of El Salvador (“CISPES”) v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.
cited
Cited "see"
Barrett v. McHugh
See Comm. in Solidarity with the People of El Sal. v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Trudeau v. Federal Trade Commission
See Comm. in Solidarity v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1991) (irreparable harm is not present where plaintiff alleges “injuries neither extant nor presently threatened, but only merely ‘feared’ ”); Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 , 674 (D.C.Cir.1985) (“the injury must be both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner,
v.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., Et Al., Intervenors
v.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., Et Al., Intervenors
88-1391.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Apr 11, 1991.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.On consideration of intervenors’ petition for rehearing filed October 12,1989, and of the supplemental memorandum in support thereof filed March 27, 1991, it is
ORDERED by the court that inter-venors’ petition for rehearing be denied. Intervenors’ suggestion that the court’s opinion of August 29, 1989 (883 F.2d 1079) be modified in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Norfolk & Western Ry. v. American Train Dispatchers Ass’n, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 1156, 113 L.Ed.2d 95 (1991), is granted as follows:
At 883 F.2d at 1082, delete the second full paragraph beginning “Our recent decision in Brotherhood of Railway Carmen....”, as well as the introductory phrase of the third paragraph, “Although that issue is squarely presented here, we find it inappropriate to consider the question because”. Insert the following introductory phrase at the beginning of the third paragraph: “We find, however, that”.