Filed October 25, 2011
Plaintiffs have failed to show likelihood of success on the merits for three reasons: 4 See, e.g., Town of Huntington v. Marsh, 884 F.2d 648, 653 (2d Cir. 1989) (“‘[W]here the equities require, it remains within the sound discretion of a district court to decline an injunction, even where deviations from prescribed NEPA procedures have occurred.’” (quoting Conservation Soc’y of S. Vt., Inc. v. Sec’y of Transp., 508 F.2d 927, 933 (2d Cir. 1974)); City of Rochester v. U.S. Postal Serv., 541 F.2d 967, 977 (2d Cir. 1976) (declining to enjoin construction pending compliance with NEPA); New York v. NRC, 550 F.2d 745, 753-54 (2d Cir. 1977) (“‘We also note that even if there were violations of [NEPA], which we by no means find, the district court has substantial discretion to determine whether an injunction should issue.’” (citation omitted)).