above a lawfully established level. As such, the ability of the plaintiffs to issue refunds substantially diminishes the harm that may befall their subscribers if an injunction is granted, and is outweighed by the harm that may befall the plaintiffs. Finally, we must determine whether the issuance of an injunction will serve the public interest. The plaintiffs have made a showing that there is a substantial likelihood that MTA §§ 701 and 310(7), respectively, are unconstitutional insofar as each statute fails to provide adequate safeguards against confiscatory rates. As such, the public interest would be served by the enjoinment of each of the challenged sections of the MTA. See Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 822 F.2d 1390, 1400 (6th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). In summary, the plaintiffs have presented a
recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding unconstitutional the enforcement provisions of the brady handgun violence prevention act requiring local chief law enforcement officers to perform background checks on gun purchasers recognizing an administrative necessity exception to the general rule that state courts are the proper forum for determining whether there is a public highway under rs 2477 and the respective rights of interested parties holding that the state attorney generals duty to support the constitutionality of challenged state statutes and his duty to defend actions in which the state is interested do not constitute enforcement of the statute in question recognizing that the public is certainly interested in the prevention of enforcement of ordinances which may be unconstitutional