D.T. v. Sumner Cty. Sch., 942 F.3d 324

D.T., a child with autism, was withdrawn from Tennessee public school by his parents and placed in private therapy after public schooling proved inadequate; the parents were convicted of truancy as a result.
To avoid further prosecution while preserving therapy, the parents enrolled D.T. in a state-approved private school and private therapy program, but they want the option to remove him again if needed.
Parents sued the school district seeking a preliminary injunction to preclude future truancy prosecution, arguing federal disability law preempts state attendance laws.
The district court denied the preliminary injunction solely because the parents failed to show an imminent, irreparable injury, and it declined to reach the other three preliminary-injunction factors.
Parents appealed, arguing the court should have considered the other factors and that the threat of future prosecution was sufficiently concrete to justify immediate relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion	Parents: imminent threat of prosecution creates irreparable harm warranting injunction	School district: threat is speculative; no immediate irreparable harm	No abuse; denial affirmed because plaintiffs failed to show imminent irreparable harm
Whether court erred by stopping after finding no irreparable harm	Parents: court should balance all four factors before denying relief	School district: irreparable-harm requirement is dispositive; court may stop	Court correctly stopped; irreparable harm is mandatory prerequisite
Whether fear of future prosecution based on possible future choices is a "certain and immediate" injury	Parents: credible threat of prosecution (citing Kiser) establishes injury in fact	School district: multiple contingent events make the harm speculative	Harm is speculative (too many "ifs"); not certain and immediate enough for injunction
Whether likelihood of success on the merits can substitute for irreparable harm	Parents: likely to win on merits supports granting injunction now	School district: likelihood alone cannot replace irreparable-harm requirement	Likelihood of success does not obviate the need to show imminent irreparable harm

Benisek v. Lamone, 138 S. Ct. 1942 (2018) (preliminary injunction requires a showing of likely success and likely irreparable harm)
Friendship Materials, Inc. v. Mich. Brick, Inc., 679 F.2d 100 (6th Cir. 1982) (irreparable injury is an indispensable prerequisite for a preliminary injunction)
Griepentrog v. Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc., 945 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1991) (injury must be certain and immediate, not speculative)
Kiser v. Reitz, 765 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2014) (credible threat of prosecution can support standing where future exposure is imminent and noncontingent)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (articulates the four-part preliminary injunction test and emphasizes the need for likely irreparable harm)
S. Milk Sales, Inc. v. Martin, 924 F.2d 98 (6th Cir. 1991) (district court may deny a preliminary injunction based solely on lack of irreparable injury)
NHL Players' Ass'n v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey Club, 325 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for denial of preliminary injunction is abuse of discretion)