. . « N@ are FeTisried that this case does
cit mall far 2 calancing of <tn2 equities
ovo far the invczetion of the seneralities
of fudisial menins in order tc determine
“rather an infunction shoulsa c2
issued...
The aszuiteable asoctrines relies on do not
milttvavea against one capacity oF a court
cf e:ruéity |S
2 frocer forum
©
in which to maxe
= terlered colic: of Congress effective.
unis trineipl> is well established with respect to enjoinment
of -nenstitutional vislations.
Sees, for example, Henry v. Greenville
Aivoort Tommission, 224 F.2d 631, 333 (4th Cir. 1960)("The District
to deny relief by preliminary injunction
establishes by undisputed evidence
-
v
a that
zonstitutional right."); Lewis v. Kugler, 445
1971) ("Fersons who can establish that
are ceing denies tneir constitutional rights are entitled
Sducation, 229 F.2d 853, 257
296 (1956)("Watle the granting
the
juci2zial discretion of the District
aled no case in which it
mas Judicial
net on
wee wee
Tra
3o
is
iiscretion by denial of an
aa a
continue tne deorivetion
of basic numan rights.
:
-ane
fencvift
ier
ed
Truss Seeshic
by the Ninth Circutt
we
itutional dccumen
fate
re
")
2120
a
for iLoronesians
so been aoplied for violations
55 F.23 1211, 1116 (9th Cir.
ee
- Bree
fh
iy)
se tote
9052135