preserve the pre-trial status quo ... before a trial on the merits occurs.” RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1208 (10th Cir.2009) (emphasis added). In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that the movant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the movant’s favor; and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest. Id. (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008)). The second factor, irreparable injury, may be satisfied if the movant shows a significant risk of irreparable harm. Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250, 1258 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, if the movant has established the
recognizing that not all constitutional harms are synonymous with irreparable harm and that mere assertion of a first amendment right does not automatically require a finding of irreparable harm rather the movant must show a chilling effect on protected activity holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative holding that likelihood of irreparable harm must be based on evidence in the record not unsupported and conclusory statements regarding harm the plaintiff might suffer holding that the opposing party must show substantial harm