Opinion on the TRO (not the merits of the case) here.

Of interest to us is the continued use of “public interest” in direct opposition to “tribal interests” when it comes to equity, injunctions, and restraining orders:

Nor does the Court find that the last two Winters factors militate for issuance of a TRO. First, the balance of the equities does not tip strongly in favor of issuance of a TRO. Though the Tribe certainly has a strong interest in preservation of its culture and spiritual interest, the public also has an interest in being allowed to see and experience the land, as long as precautions are taken to preserve the nature of the place. Without a clearer articulation about how the tours harm that experience—limited as they are in time and scope—the Court perceives no strong tip of the balance of equities such that a TRO/preliminary injunction is warranted. Similarly, prohibiting the final two wildflower tours appears to weigh against public interest, as the wildflower tours represent a rare chance for the public to have access—in a limited way—to this area.

Previous coverage here.