Delaware State Sportsmens Association Inc v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Securit, 108 F.4th 194

In 2022, Delaware enacted laws banning the possession, sale, and manufacture of "assault weapons" and large capacity magazines (LCMs - over 17 rounds), with exceptions for law enforcement and military.
Plaintiffs—Delaware gun rights organizations and individuals—challenged these laws in federal court as unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the laws while the case proceeded.
The district court denied the injunction, finding no likelihood of success on the merits and no showing of irreparable harm.
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that a likely constitutional violation automatically requires injunctive relief.
The Third Circuit affirmed the denial, analyzing both the evidentiary record and the traditional equitable standards for preliminary injunctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a likelihood of success on the merits enough for injunction?	Constitutional rights violations always irreparable; so merits alone justify injunction	Four-factor test applies; irreparable harm and equities still needed	Likely success is not enough; all four factors must be considered
Are Delaware's bans unconstitutional under the Second Amendment?	Bans non-military weapons commonly owned for self-defense; infringes individual right	Assault weapons and LCMs are not "Arms" protected by Second Amendment; suited for military not self-defense	Plaintiffs not likely to succeed; weapons regulated not protected by Second Amendment
Should courts presume irreparable harm for constitutional claims?	Yes; all constitutional harms are irreparable	No; only First Amendment claims get such presumption	No general presumption for Second Amendment; irreparable harm not shown
Do the equities and public interest favor injunction?	Yes; enforcement of unconstitutional laws harms public	State's legislated safety interest, federalism, and prompt execution of laws	Equities and public interest support denying injunction; public safety interest strong

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (Preliminary injunctions require a four-factor balancing; not automatic upon merits)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment protects arms in common use for self-defense but not all weapons)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (Sets two-step test for Second Amendment claims: text and historical tradition)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (Traditional equitable principles govern injunctions; no automatic rules)
Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (Injunctive relief against state enforcement causes irreparable injury to state)
University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (Purpose of preliminary injunction is to maintain status quo pending trial)
Mallet & Co. v. Lacayo, 16 F.4th 364 (Preliminary injunctions are extraordinary and only for limited circumstances)
Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173 (No one factor for injunction is dispositive; all must be weighed)