for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be dis-served by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006). Addressing the first factor, Hatchett has clearly suffered an irreparable injury. The Supreme Court as well as the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit have emphasized that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373-74, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (citation omitted); see also Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 485-86, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965) (<HOLDING>); Joelner v. Vill. of Wash. Park, Ill., 378
holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction holding that allegation of procedural injury does not affect the issues of injury in fact or causation holding that an allegation of impairment to freedom of expression demonstrated an irreparable injury holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury