BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
Appellants, Seniors United for Action, bring this appeal from an order of the district court denying a preliminary injunction. We affirm the district court.
The Honorable Donald E. O'Brien, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
Appellants' complaint challenges a cutback in Medicaid benefits adopted by the Iowa legislature and implemented by the Iowa Department of Social Services. Appellants attack the enactment and implementation of this legislation on several grounds, but press only two contentions on appeal. The appellants argue that
The 68th Iowa General Assembly adopted an appropriations bill, House File 2580, which provides in part:
Sec. 76. The department of social services shall adopt rules * * * as follows:
(1) appellees failed to comply with the public notice requirements of
42 C.F.R. § 447.205 (1979);
and
(2) appellees failed to provide the Iowa Medical Assistance Advisory Council with an opportunity to participate in the development of the Medicaid cutback plan, in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(2), (22)(D) (1976) and
42 C.F.R. § 431.12 (1979).
Our scope of review of an order denying a preliminary injunction is very limited. We cannot reverse unless we determine that the district court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal premise. Rittmiller v. Blex Oil, Inc., 624 F.2d 857, 859 (8th Cir. 1980); Federal Trade Commission v. National Tea Co., 603 F.2d 694, 696 (8th Cir. 1979); American Home Investment Co. v. Bedel, 525 F.2d 1022, 1023 (8th Cir. 1975); Minnesota Bearing Co. v. White Motor Co., 470 F.2d 1323, 1326 (8th Cir. 1973).
To justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate either 1) probable success on the merits and possible irreparable injury, or, under some circumstances, 2) a sufficiently serious question on the merits to make it a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting preliminary relief. Rittmiller v. Blex Oil, Inc., supra, 624 F.2d at 860; Young v. Harris, 599 F.2d 870, 875-76 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 993, 100 S.Ct. 526, 62 L.Ed.2d 423 (1979); Fennell v. Butler, 570 F.2d 263 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 906, 98 S.Ct. 3093, 57 L.Ed.2d 1136 (1978).
The resolution of the appropriate test is now before the en banc court in Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C. L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1980) ( rehearing granted Sept. 18, 1980).
The district court, in denying the preliminary injunction, found neither irreparable harm nor probable success by plaintiff on the merits. The court also observed that "the balance of hardships do not tip decidedly toward plaintiffs." Thus the district court recognized the legal standards for issuance of a preliminary injunction as articulated by this court.
We observe that the resolution of the legal issues in this case is not without substantial difficulty, but the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a balance of hardships tipping in its favor. We cannot say, therefore, that the district court abused its discretion. Additionally, as noted by the district court, appellants may present
the same issues involved herein again at trial in this matter. The Court's ruling is merely limited to the record established at the oral hearing held in this matter, including the briefs, pleadings and affidavits filed herein. In no respect should this ruling be construed as foreclosing plaintiffs from rearguing these same issues at trial.
Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the preliminary injunction. We further direct that the mandate issue forthwith so that the district court may expeditiously resolve the merits of the dispute and enter a final judgment in this case.