Kaiser

facts have changed since the TRO was granted. Petitioners have raised a serious legal question, 21 and demonstrated a likelihood of success, with respect to the merits of whether they may be 22 detained in the circumstances presented here, and have also made a sufficient showing on the other 23 factors that the Court considers when granting a preliminary injunction. See Am. Fed’n of Gov’t 24 Emps., AFL-CIO v. Trump, No. 25-CV-03070-JD, 2025 WL 1755442, at *8 (N.D. Cal. 25 June 24, 2025) (citing Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 26 27 2011)); Dkt. No. 8. The government’s contentions to the contrary, Dkt. No. 11, are substantively || identical to those raised in opposition to the TRO, Dkt. No. 5. The Court has already addressed and disallowed these arguments, Dkt. No. 8, and that discussion and reasoning are incorporated || here. The government has not presented a good reason to reach a different conclusion at this time. Consequently, a preliminary injunction is granted on the ensuing terms. If circumstances || change materially, the government may request a modification of the injunction. (1) …