proffered harm is not truly irreparable, late filing alone is not a sufficient basis for denying a preliminary injunction. See Gordon v. Holder, 632 F.3d 722, 724 (D.C.Cir.2011) (‘‘[A] delay in filing is not a proper basis for denial of a preliminaiy injunction.”). In this case, I do not find the two-year delay to be significant. Although the Government emphasizes the "personal” nature of Fourth Amendment rights, see Gov’t’s Opp’n 29, it was certainly reasonable for the Little plaintiffs to perceive that their rights would ultimately be vindicated by other similarly-situated plaintiffs — the expectation of privacy in their telephony metadata is identical and the searches thereof were reasonably inferred to be the same. Cf. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5 (1958) (<HOLDING>). Until our Circuit Court's decision regarding
holding that court is bound by prior panels interpretation of supreme court decision holding that arkansas state officials were bound by the supreme courts prior decision that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional in a case involving four different states that employed a similar system holding unconstitutional the closing of all the schools in one county holding that federal courts are bound by state interpretations of state law holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution