About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


98 Temp. L. Rev. Online 1 (2025)

handle is hein.journals/tlro98 and id is 1 raw text is: TEMPLE LAW REVIEW ONLINE © 2025 TEMPLE UNIVERSITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION VOL. 98 DEC. 2025 COMMENT EQUITABLE STANDARDS FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF: BRIDGING THE CIRCUIT SPLIT ON IRREPARABLE SECOND AMENDMENT HARM* I. INTRODUCTION Imagine you live in North Philadelphia with your large extended family. Concerned about crime, you consider buying a handgun for protection. However, a Pennsylvania statute increases penalties for crimes committed where a gun is present. You know the government applies this statute broadly, meaning that if any crime occurs in your home, the presence of even a legally owned gun could increase the criminal sentence. Your twenty-year-old son is a gang member, and you fear he participates in criminal activity. Though you are eligible for a gun license, you decide against applying, fearing unintended legal consequences if your son brings his unlawful activities into your home. You instead decide to sue, arguing that the Pennsylvania statute violates the Second Amendment. Because litigation takes time, your lawyer requests a preliminary injunction to pause enforcement of the statute. However, the judge denies this request, ruling that you face no irreparable harm-since you can still legally buy a gun, your Second Amendment rights remain intact. But what if the court could consider your circumstances? Your Second Amendment right to self-defense was chilled. You chose not to buy a gun out of fear of legal consequences, despite believing you need one, and given the conditions in your neighborhood, this decision could one day be fatal. This Comment explores whether a chilling effect (perhaps as exemplified above) should be considered by courts when analyzing irreparable harm for preliminary Jasmine Hinkey, J.D. Candidate, Temple University Beasley School of Law, 2026. Thank you to Professor Jaya Ramji-Nogales for her invaluable guidance in researching and drafting this piece; to the members of the Temple Law Review, especially David Ryan, Hailey McHugh Gilles, and Cameron Robinson for their hard work editing this Comment; and finally, to my family and friends for their inspiration and unwavering support in the process of writing this Comment. 1