Its an interesting twist that the media has given, calling it a...

Its an interesting twist that the media has given, calling it a victory:

"temporary settlement with an Australian mining company and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) preventing new ground-disturbing activities for 35 days— enough time to give the court time to hear a motion for a preliminary injunction."

The preliminary injunction I am certain was filed by INR as a related party. Currently on the legal tracker INR has recently requested a time extention on this injunction (they are probably getting together more documentation). I don't know the full definition of an injunction but wiki says its the following (which makes sense why it would be INR that filed it):

In most courts in the United States, the party seeking the preliminary injunction must demonstrate all six things together:^{[citation needed]}

1. That there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case,
2. That they face a substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury if the injunction is not granted,
3. The threat is immediate,
4. That the balance of harms weighs in favor of the party seeking the preliminary injunction,
5. There is no other available remedy,
6. That the grant of an injunction would serve the public interest.

I would have to say that the above points are all clearly met under INR's injunction. Why has it taken 24 years to list the plant as endangered? Why now when hundreds of millions of dollars of investor funds are involved in this project that it now becomes a significant issue? Why not list it back in 1995, probably a long time before INR even held land rights!