on the question now before us. Some address wholly separate aspects of Winter. See, e.g., Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1022-23 (9th Cir.2009) (emphasizing that Winter requires consideration of narrow injunctive relief). Others simply recite the Winter test without elaboration. See, e.g., S. Fork Band Council of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 588 F.3d 718, 721 (9th Cir.2009); Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.2009). Three other circuits have directly confronted the question whether some version of a sliding scale test has survived Winter. They have split. The Fourth Circuit has held that the sliding scale approach is now invalid. Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 575 F.3d 342, 347 (4th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct.
holding that the circuits prior test which permitted flexible interplay among the elements may no longer be applied after winter holding that after marrama  the absolute right position is no longer viable recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court holding that a support order was no longer equitable after a blood test excluded the putative father holding that the eighth circuit no longer asks which district among two or more potential forums is the best venue