Went through the first part. I didn't go through the whole technical argument because I'm no expert in these matters, but the preliminary parts were very interesting.

Page 11 discusses LAC’s legal argument for what it would take for the preliminary injunction to be granted. Taking out the legal references, the major points are:

“The standard of review is “highly deferential, presuming the agency action to be valid and affirming the agency action if a reasonable basis exists for its decision. The APA does not allow courts to overturn agency decisions because they disagree with the decision or with the agency’s conclusions about environmental impacts. A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy” that requires the movant, “by a clear showing,” to “carr[y] the burden of persuasion.”  To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must, at a minimum, demonstrate four elements: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest. Plaintiffs must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.”

Of the 4 elements identified, the first one, likelihood of success on the merits, is the most important, and if this is not likely, the court need not consider the other elements. 

LAC’s filing systematically breaks down the weakness in the plaintiffs’ arguments. I’m convinced, ha ha, although I’m no expert and I admit I’m a little biased. Basically LAC’s argument makes me feel more confident in a positive outcome. We’ll see.

Again, great info WB DT.