determination of the rights of the parties, though the postponement may be burdensome to the plaintiff.” (citing, among other cases, Virginian Ry. Co. v. Sys. Fed’n No. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 552, 57 S.Ct. 592, 81 L.Ed. 789 (1937) (clarifying that even private controversies, to the extent they may seriously impair service to the public, are a matter of public concern))) (footnote omitted). Plaintiff also seeks permanent injunctive relief. The test for a permanent injunction is almost identical to that for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, but rather than the likelihood of success on the merits, a permanent injunction requires actual success on the merits. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987) (<HOLDING>). In PGBA LLC v. United States, the Federal
holding it is an abuse of discretion to grant a preliminary injunction because difficult legal issues are present without even considering likelihood of success holding that the standard for permanent injunction is the same as that for preliminary injunction with the one exception being that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits rather than likelihood of success holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified holding that the movant had to establish both of the first two factors ie likelihood of success and irreparable harm to receive a preliminary injunction holding candidates for judicial office were entitled to preliminary injunction of expenditure limit given likelihood of success on the merits irreparable harm and lack of public interest in enforcing a law that curtailed political speech