Key Takeaways
- Nationwide injunctions have become more frequent due to executive orders, fueling debate on judicial power.
- The Supreme Court's Trump v. CASA decision reined in nationwide injunctions but broad relief remains available.
- Historical interpretation of 1789 remedies by the Supreme Court in CASA drew criticism for selectivity.
- Lower courts are applying CASA's constraints, facing accusations of circumvention when issuing broad remedies.
Deep Dive
- A single federal judge can halt a president's policy nationwide, a practice dating back to at least 1913.
- The increasing frequency of these injunctions is linked to administrations using executive orders to implement policy amidst congressional gridlock.
- This trend has led to a rise in legal challenges and controversy regarding judicial overreach.
- Proponents argue lower courts must respond to emergencies affecting millions, protecting vulnerable populations who cannot realistically sue individually.
- Courts need a broad remedial arsenal to counter government power, especially when actions like deportation or census errors are difficult to undo.
- Preventing nationwide injunctions would allow unlawful government actions to continue, affecting millions while only specific plaintiffs receive relief.
- The Supreme Court case Trump v. CASA concerned a Trump administration order aiming to limit birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens.
- Lower courts immediately enjoined this day-one executive order.
- The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, focusing solely on the scope of nationwide injunctions rather than the legality of the birthright citizenship order.
- In the CASA decision, the Supreme Court held federal courts generally lack authority to issue injunctions protecting non-parties.
- However, broad relief is allowed if necessary for 'complete relief' to the actual plaintiffs, with cases remanded to determine its necessity.
- The ruling relies on an interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789, prompting disagreement about the historical availability of such remedies.
- Professor Sohoni criticized the Court's historical analysis as selective, arguing it ignored relevant 20th-century precedents affirming broad injunctions.
- The CASA decision did not resolve policy problems but reshuffled them, particularly regarding forum shopping.
- Avenues for broad relief remain through universal vacatur of rules under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and nationwide class actions.
- Plaintiffs will continue to forum shop for judges who can grant broad remedies via class actions or 'complete relief' findings, potentially recreating pre-CASA issues.
- The decision introduces new problems by requiring courts to define 'complete relief' without clear guidance.
- Lower courts are interpreting and applying the CASA decision to new contexts, which is both essential and commonplace.
- Despite operating within the ruling's parameters, lower courts applying CASA are being accused of circumventing the decision.
- Concerns exist that CASA could increase friction between courts and the executive branch, and create new tensions between lower courts and the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court faces critique for its perceived insistence that judicial review is inappropriate and for lecturing lower courts.
- It is suggested the Court may be using 'procedural triage' by redirecting cases to courts that cannot issue injunctions to manage lawsuit influx.
- There is an ongoing debate among justices about the necessary level of detail and instruction in emergency application interventions.
- A question was raised regarding the selective application of originalism in the CASA decision, particularly comparing its use in statutory interpretation versus constitutional arguments.
- The Court's distinction between plaintiff-protective injunctions and broader injunctions in CASA is viewed as a "startling discrepancy."
- The term "judicial activism" is discussed as often used to express disagreement with a court's decision rather than as a precise legal analysis.