This appeal is from the grant of a preliminary injunction. As we understand it, *931 today’s case presents a close question in the application of law to a set of unique facts. We are hot deciding the merits of the case. But we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction in this case. “A preliminary injunction may be issued to protect the plaintiff from irreparable injury and to preserve the district court’s power to render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction rests in the discretion of the district court.” Canal Authority of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974). See also Schiavo v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir. 2005); Revette v. Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, 740 F.2d 892, 893 (11th Cir. 1984).

Today’s affirmance of the preliminary injunction does not affect the law of the case on the merits. A full review of appellants’ assertions can be had after — and if— the district court on full consideration decides to grant a permanent injunction.

AFFIRMED.