Final answer:
When awarding an injunction, courts must consider additional factors like public interest, severity and irreparability of harm, the standard of 'compelling governmental interest,' and whether the injunction is narrowly tailored.
Step-by-step explanation:
When awarding an injunction, the courts consider several additional factors in the balancing of hardships beyond the immediate legal considerations. These factors may encompass the implications of an injunction on public interests, the severity of the harm that may be avoided through the injunction, and the potential for the harm to be irreparable. In cases where civil liberties are in question, as with religious freedoms or free expression, there is a higher bar for supporting the injunction, entailing a 'compelling governmental interest' and evidence that the injunction is 'narrowly tailored' to address that interest.
This necessity to balance hardships is also seen in decisions about land-use regulations and the extent to which they infringe upon civil liberties. The complexity arises from the subjective determination of what constitutes an inappropriate infringement, thus often leading to litigation. Courts also evaluate precedent cases, which help inform their understanding of what constitutes a hardship and when an injunction is appropriate.