Rule 3:26.Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions.

This rule fills a gap: it applies only where a statute doesn’t already set different criteria for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, and it treats “preliminary injunction” as interchangeable with temporary, interim, and interlocutory injunction.

A temporary restraining order is meant to hold the status quo for a brief period while the parties head toward a hearing on a preliminary injunction, and it issues only if the equities warrant it and the movant has given adequate notice to the opposing side. The rule allows a TRO without notice, but only on a tight showing: specific facts in an affidavit, a verified complaint, or sworn testimony must clearly show that immediate and irreparable harm will hit the movant before the adverse party can be heard, and the movant or the movant’s attorney must certify in writing what efforts were made to give notice and why notice shouldn’t be required.

A preliminary injunction carries a higher bar. The court can’t issue one unless it first determines the movant will more likely than not suffer irreparable harm without it. Clearing that threshold isn’t the end of the analysis — the court still has to weigh whether the movant has shown, with credible facts rather than mere allegations, that the underlying claim will more likely than not succeed on the merits; whether the balance of hardships, comparing the harm to the movant without the injunction against the harm to the nonmovant with it, favors granting relief; and whether the public interest, if any is implicated, supports issuing the injunction. A preliminary injunction can issue only if the first two factors favor the movant and the public-interest factor doesn’t cut against it.

There’s a narrow escape valve from the likely-success requirement. In rare cases where the likely irreparable harm to the movant is severe and the corresponding harm to the nonmovant is slight, the court may still issue a preliminary injunction on a clear showing that the underlying claim has substantial merit warranting interim relief, even without a determination that the movant will likely succeed on the merits. And the rule leaves two related matters where it finds them, in the Code: the requirement of an injunction bond before a preliminary injunction or restraining order takes effect, and the requirement that the order specify how long it remains in effect.