DOCSLIB.ORG

National Injunctions and Preclusion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Injunctions and Preclusion Michigan Law Review Volume 118 Issue 1 2019 National Injunctions and Preclusion Zachary D. Clopton Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Courts Commons, Litigation Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Zachary D. Clopton, National Injunctions and Preclusion, 118 MICH. L. REV. 1 (2019). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol118/iss1/2 https://doi.org/10.36644/mlr.118.1.national This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NATIONAL INJUNCTIONS AND PRECLUSION Zachary D. Clopton* Critics of national injunctions are lining up. Attorney General Jeff Sessions labeled these injunctions “absurd” and “simply unsustainable .” Justice Clar- ence Thomas called them “legally and historically dubious,” while Justice Neil Gorsuch mockingly referred to them as “cosmic injunctions .” Scholars in leading law reviews have called for their demise. Critics argue that national injunctions encourage forum shopping, unfairly burden the federal govern- ment, and depart from the history of equity. They also claim that national injunctions contradict the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Mendoza to exempt the federal government from offensive nonmutual issue preclusion—a doctrine that permits nonparties to benefit from a prior finding against a party from an earlier case. Critics are right to identify the connection between national injunctions and nonmutual preclusion. Both of these doctrines describe when judgments can benefit nonparties. But critics are wrong to see Mendoza as an argument against national injunctions. For one thing, the rise of nonmutual preclusion that prompted Mendoza undercuts crucial arguments against national in- junctions by offering an alternative explanation for the absence of analogous injunctions in the history of equity. For another, Mendoza was not preor- dained; instead, it was a highly policy-driven decision. And Mendoza’s policy arguments were dubious when it was decided and even more dubious today. Scrutinizing these arguments should make us less comfortable in extending Mendoza to a new context—as the Supreme Court may be poised to do. Indeed, this Article goes one step further. The Supreme Court or Congress should take advantage of the attention on nonparty relief to reconsider, and overrule, Mendoza. Federal-government litigants do not deserve special treatment with respect to preclusion in every case, and the existing rules of preclusion adequately protect the interests purportedly at stake in Mendoza. Moreover, rejecting Mendoza has feedback effects for the national- injunctions debate. Overruling Mendoza would not only reduce the need for national injunctions (because preclusion could do some of the work) but also provide a framework for limiting national injunctions without eliminating * Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Thank you to William Bau- de, Samuel Bray, Maureen Carroll, Ned Cavanagh, Kevin Clermont, Michael Dorf, Amanda Frost, John Golden, Tara Leigh Grove, Christine Jolls, Jill Lens, Marin Levy, Suzette Malveaux, David Marcus, Michael Morley, Colleen Murphy, James Pfander, Doug Rendleman, Judith Resnik, Henry Smith, Norman Spaulding, A. Benjamin Spencer, Jed Stiglitz, Maggie Wittlin, and Adam Zimmerman, as well as to the Notre Dame Remedies Roundtable, the Junior Feder- al Courts Workshop, the Civil Procedure Workshop, the Ira C. Rothgerber Jr. Conference on Constitutional Law, and the Yale-Stanford-Harvard Junior Faculty Forum. 1 2 Michigan Law Review [Vol. 118:1 them completely. This is especially important given recent decisions that make relying on class actions a tenuous response. More generally, overruling Mendoza would create a system that is fairer to governmental and nongov- ernmental litigants alike while reaffirming each branch’s role in the making of national policy. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 2 I. BACKGROUND...................................................................................... 7 A. National Injunctions.................................................................... 8 B. Nonmutual Preclusion...............................................................10 II. RETELLING THE NATIONAL INJUNCTIONS HISTORY......................15 A. Early History...............................................................................15 B. Modern History ..........................................................................18 III. OVERRULING MENDOZA ...................................................................20 A. Mendoza Was Wrong................................................................21 B. Government Preclusion..............................................................29 C. Recent Developments .................................................................33 IV. CONSEQUENCES FOR NATIONAL INJUNCTIONS..............................37 A. Preclusion and National Injunctions .......................................39 B. The Future of National Injunctions .........................................42 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................44 INTRODUCTION The national injunction is a cause célèbre. Sometimes referred to as ab- sent-party, nationwide, universal, global, or cosmic, this remedial tool has attracted attention because it applies to defendants (usually federal- government defendants) in their interactions with parties and nonparties alike.1 Federal district courts have issued national injunctions addressing 1. See, e.g., Spencer E. Amdur & David Hausman, Response, Nationwide Injunctions and Nationwide Harm, 131 HARV. L. REV. F. 49 (2017); Samuel L. Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 HARV. L. REV. 417 (2017); Amanda Frost, In Defense of Nationwide Injunctions, 93 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1065 (2018); Kate Huddleston, Nationwide Injunc- tions: Venue Considerations, 127 YALE L.J.F. 242 (2017); Suzette M. Malveaux, Response, Class Actions, Civil Rights, and the National Injunction, 131 HARV. L. REV. F. 56 (2017); Michael T. Morley, Nationwide Injunctions, Rule 23(b)(2), and the Remedial Powers of the Lower Courts, 97 B.U. L. REV. 615 (2017); Zayn Siddique, Nationwide Injunctions, 117 COLUM. L. REV. 2095 (2017); Howard M. Wasserman, “Nationwide” Injunctions Are Really “Universal” Injunctions and They Are Never Appropriate, 22 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 335 (2018). The term “cosmic in- junction” was used by Justice Gorsuch in the oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii. Transcript of Oral Argument at 73, Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (No. 17-965) (“We have this October 2019] National Injunctions and Preclusion 3 high-profile issues including the Travel Ban, sanctuary cities, and more.2 Commentators have homed in on the national injunction as a target of criti- cism. Leading the way, Samuel Bray argued in the Harvard Law Review that the national injunction is inconsistent with the history of equity, and he called for a strict party-based limit on injunctive relief.3 Concurring in the Travel Ban case, Justice Thomas adopted Bray’s position and called for an end to national injunctions.4 Other scholars have criticized national injunc- tions, while a few have stepped up in their defense.5 Both critics and defenders of national injunctions have acknowledged the connection between these injunctions and the law of preclusion.6 In par- ticular, critics of national injunctions have argued that granting an injunc- tion against the federal government that protects nonparties would be contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Mendoza.7 That 1984 decision held that the federal government is exempt from the doctrine of offensive nonmutual issue preclusion8—a doctrine that permits plaintiffs to invoke a prior adjudication in a subsequent action even though they were not parties to the original suit.9 Because Mendoza says that a nonparty can- not get the preclusive benefit of a prior adjudication against the federal gov- ernment, critics argue that the same nonparty should not get the remedial benefit of a national injunction against the federal government either.10 Pro- ponents of national injunctions, meanwhile, take pains to distinguish the na- tional injunction from Mendoza’s requirement of mutuality.11 While scholars of national injunctions are right to see the connection to nonmutual preclusion, they have failed to appreciate the consequences of that interaction. A fuller evaluation of the relationship between national in- troubling rise of this nationwide injunction, cosmic injunction . .”). The solicitor general earlier characterized these orders as “absent-party injunctions.” Reply Brief for Petitioners at 30, Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (No. 17-965). 2. See supra note 1 (collecting sources that have done considerable work collecting cas- es). 3. See Bray, supra note 1, at 420. 4. Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2424–29 (Thomas, J., concurring). 5. See supra note 1 (collecting sources). 6. Scholars writing about “agency nonacquiescence” have also observed the potential connection
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Can and Should Universal Injunctions Be Saved?
    NOTES Can and Should Universal Injunctions Be Saved? The practice of a federal district court judge halting the govern- ment’s enforcement of an executive action against not only the parties before the court but against anyone, anywhere, may be coming to an end. Multiple Supreme Court Justices have expressed their skepticism in the propriety of universal injunctions. The growing scholarly consensus is that there should be a brightline rule against them. If the universal in- junction’s demise is impending and the class action’s demise continues unabated, obtaining systemwide relief may be difficult when such relief may be most needed. This Note considers whether universal injunctions can and should be saved. It first compares the macro-level trends and current tradeoffs between the two procedural choices for seeking systemwide re- lief. Then, this Note considers whether universal injunctions can be the- oretically justified based on the development of issue preclusion doctrine and the drafting of the modern class action rules. Finally, this Note pro- poses a specialized forum to adjudicate universal injunction suits that would solve the two most pressing problems caused by such injunc- tions—judge shopping and preclusion asymmetry—and realign the tradeoffs that plaintiffs consider when choosing how to seek systemwide relief. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1677 I. THE MACRO-LEVEL TRENDS IN AGGREGATE LITIGATION .. 1681 A. The Rapid Rise of Universal Injunctions .............. 1681 1. Indeterminate Equitable Principles .......... 1681 2. Judge Shopping .......................................... 1685 B. The Slow Demise of Class Actions ......................... 1688 1. Rule 23 Prerequisites ................................. 1688 2. Collateral Damage to the 23(b)(2) Class Action .......................................................... 1689 1675 1676 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW [Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • An Appellate Solution to Nationwide Injunctions
    An Appellate Solution to Nationwide Injunctions SAM HEAVENRICH* District courts have issued an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions during the Obama and Trump administrations, provoking criticism from the Supreme Court. This Article proposes a change to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that addresses the Justices’ concerns without taking the drastic step of eliminating nationwide injunctions entirely. Specifically, this Article recommends amending Rule 65 to allow only the appellate courts to issue injunctive relief that extends beyond the plaintiffs in cases challenging a federal law or policy. In addition to the proposed Rule change, this Article offers a categorization framework for existing proposals addressing nationwide injunctions, classifying them as “Prohibitory Rules,” “Inhibitory Standards,” or “Inhibitory Rules.” The proposal itself takes the form of an Inhibitory Rule. INTRODUCTION As early as 1967, Justice Fortas described nationwide injunctions as a “license for mischief.”1 In recent years, the number of nationwide injunctions issued by the federal courts has increased dramatically. District courts have used them to halt the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program,2 postpone the Trump travel ban,3 and keep Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in place despite the Trump administration’s attempts at rescission.4 As the frequency of nationwide injunctions has increased, critics and defenders of the practice have weighed in from across the legal landscape. Critics challenge the * J.D. Candidate 2022, Yale Law School. I am grateful to Harold Koh, Rob Harrison, Briana Clark, the editors of the Indiana Law Journal Supplement, especially Charles Rice, and my family and friends for their thoughtful guidance and encouragement.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Judgments, Nationwide Injunctions, and Universal Handcuffs
    Notre Dame Law Review Reflection Volume 96 Issue 1 Article 4 12-6-2020 One Ring to Rule Them All: Individual Judgments, Nationwide Injunctions, and Universal Handcuffs Paul J. Larkin Jr. John, Barbara & Victoria Rumpel Senior Legal Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation; M.P.P., George Washington University, 2010; J.D., Stanford Law School, 1980; B.A., Washington & Lee University, 1977 GianCarlo Canaparo Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation; J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 2014; B.A., University of California at Davis, 2011 Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation 96 Notre Dame L. Rev. Reflection 55 (2020) This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review Reflection by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL: INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENTS, NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS, AND UNIVERSAL HANDCUFFS Paul J. Larkin, Jr. & GianCarlo Canaparo* One of the earliest decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States—Marbury v. Madison—sets forth one of the most ancient principles of Anglo-American law—viz., there is a judicial remedy for every legal wrong.1 Over the last three administrations, numerous inferior federal courts have taken that principle a giant step further. Those courts have decided that, when the government acts unlawfully, they may not only remedy the plaintiff’s injury but also protect everyone else by enjoining the Executive Branch from repeating the same conduct.2 Sometimes labeled “nationwide,” “universal,” J.R.R.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case for a Multifactor Balancing Test As a Solution to Abuse of Nationwide Injunctions
    Copyright 2018 by Matthew Erickson Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 113, No. 2 Notes WHO, WHAT, AND WHERE: A CASE FOR A MULTIFACTOR BALANCING TEST AS A SOLUTION TO ABUSE OF NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS Matthew Erickson ABSTRACT—There has been a significant increase in the use of a controversial, dramatic remedy known as the nationwide injunction. This development is worrisome because it risks substantial harm to the judiciary by encouraging forum shopping, freezing the “percolation” of legal issues among the circuits, and undermining the comity between the federal courts. But a complete ban on nationwide injunctions is both impractical and undesirable. This Note proposes a solution to limit the abuse of nationwide injunctions without banning them outright. When fashioning remedies, courts should simplify the sheer number of relevant factors by focusing on three main meta-factors, or categories, that should be used as a balancing test: the identity of the parties before the court, the nature of the claim being litigated, and the effect the remedy would have on the courts where the claim is being litigated—“who,” “what,” and “where,” respectively. The balancing of these three meta-factors will enable district courts to weigh more clearly whether nationwide injunctions are proper and will also give appellate courts a framework for reviewing whether district courts have abused their discretion by issuing this type of relief. AUTHOR—J.D. Candidate, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, 2019; B.S., Colorado Christian University, 2016. Thank you to Professors James Pfander, Martin Redish, and John McGinnis for their guidance and feedback throughout the development of this Note.
    [Show full text]
  • Separation of Powers Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2018 Section 6: Separation of Powers Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 6: Separation of Powers" (2018). Supreme Court Preview. 278. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/278 Copyright c 2018 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview VI. Separation of Powers In This Section: NEW CASE: Gundy v. United States ........................................................................................... 373 “SEX OFFENDER CASE MAY DEAL BLOW TO 'ADMINISTRATIVE STATE'” Jimmy Hoover ......................................................................................................................... 376 “THE SUPREME COURT MAY REVIVE A LEGAL THEORY LAST USED TO STRIKE DOWN NEW DEAL LAWS” Mark Joseph Stern ................................................................................................................... 379 “WILL SUPREME COURT PUSH CONGRESS TO GET BACK TO ITS JOB OF MAKING LAW?” Mark Miller ............................................................................................................................. 381 “UNITED STATES V. GUNDY” Justia Inc. ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nationwide Injunctions and an Abstention Doctrine to Salve What Ails Us
    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 69 Issue 4 Article 7 6-18-2021 The Chancellors are Alright: Nationwide Injunctions and an Abstention Doctrine to Salve What Ails Us Ezra Ishmael Young Cornell Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Courts Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, and the Litigation Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Ezra Ishmael Young, The Chancellors are Alright: Nationwide Injunctions and an Abstention Doctrine to Salve What Ails Us, 69 Clev. St. L. Rev. 859 (2021) available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol69/iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CHANCELLORS ARE ALRIGHT: NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS AND AN ABSTENTION DOCTRINE TO SALVE WHAT AILS US EZRA ISHMAEL YOUNG* ABSTRACT This Article endeavors to reclaim the nationwide injunction as a valid exercise of federal equity power within the jurisdictional limits set by Article III. It posits that federal equity is expansive—it extends as far as necessary to provide a remedy where there is no adequate one at law. Historical and doctrinal context and critique are deployed to demonstrate that nationwide injunctions are not constitutionally ultra vires. This Article also posits that despite having expansive equity jurisdiction and powers, federal courts can and should in many cases exercise their constitutional discretion when sitting in equity to abstain in certain nationwide injunction suits.
    [Show full text]
  • Demystifying Nationwide Injunctions
    TRAMMELL.PRINTER (DO NOT DELETE) 11/26/2019 9:19 PM Demystifying Nationwide Injunctions Alan M. Trammell* The phenomenon of nationwide injunctions—when a single district court judge completely prevents the government from enforcing a statute, regulation, or policy—has spawned a vigorous debate. A tentative consensus has emerged that an injunction should benefit only the actual plaintiffs to a lawsuit and should not apply to persons who were not parties. These critics root their arguments in various constitutional and structural constraints on federal courts, including due process, judicial hierarchy, and inherent limits on “judicial power.” Demystifying Nationwide Injunctions shows why these arguments fail. This Article offers one of the few defenses of nationwide injunctions and is grounded in a unique theory deriving from preclusion. A rich and nuanced preclusion jurisprudence has developed to answer the very question that the current debate raises: Who should be bound by the results of litigation? Preclusion principles help explain why nationwide injunctions do not flout any constitutional or structural constraints. These principles also reveal the circumstances under which such an injunction is (and is not) appropriate. Specifically, they suggest that while a nationwide injunction should not issue as a matter of course, it is permissible when the government acts in bad faith, including most notably when government officials fail to abide by settled law. * Assistant Professor, University of Arkansas School of Law (Fayetteville). I thank the editors of the Texas Law Review for their excellent work. I am also grateful to Derek Bambauer, Zach Clopton, Andrew Coan, Marie-Amelie George, David Hausman, Suzette Malveaux, David Marcus, Toni Massaro, Henry Paul Monaghan, Michael Morley, Alex Nunn, Mila Sohoni, Susannah Pollvogt, Laurent Sacharoff, Norman Spaulding, Benjamin Spencer, Howard Wasserman, Stephen F.
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving the Nationwide National Government Injunction to Stop Illegal Executive Branch Activity
    RENDLEMAN_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 4/17/2020 5:12 PM PRESERVING THE NATIONWIDE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INJUNCTION TO STOP ILLEGAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACTIVITY DOUG RENDLEMAN* And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. –Lord of the Rings1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 888 I. THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INJUNCTION ............................................... 893 A. Judicial Review .......................................................... 893 B. Separation of Powers .................................................. 894 C. Judicial Review in Action to Curb Executive Branch Excesses .......................................................... 895 II. PROCEDURE AND REMEDIES FOR A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INJUNCTION ............................................... 901 III. TRUMP CHALLENGES JUDICIAL REVIEW AND SEPARATION OF POWERS ................................................... 906 IV. REPLY TO CRITICS OF THE NATIONWIDE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INJUNCTION ............................................... 911 A. The Federal Courts’ Jurisdiction and Authority ........ 914 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction .................................. 915 *Huntley Professor, Washington and Lee University Law School. Thanks to Shaun Shaughnessy for a careful and timely reading of an early draft and to Suzette Malveaux, Adam Steinman, Caprice Roberts, and Owen Fiss for support and encouragement. Thanks to Andrew Christensen and Franklin
    [Show full text]
  • National Injunctions and Preclusion Zachary D
    Michigan Law Review Volume 118 | Issue 1 2019 National Injunctions and Preclusion Zachary D. Clopton Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Courts Commons, Litigation Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Zachary D. Clopton, National Injunctions and Preclusion, 118 Mich. L. Rev. 1 (2019). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol118/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NATIONAL INJUNCTIONS AND PRECLUSION Zachary D. Clopton* Critics of national injunctions are lining up. Attorney General Jeff Sessions labeled these injunctions “absurd” and “simply unsustainable .” Justice Clar- ence Thomas called them “legally and historically dubious,” while Justice Neil Gorsuch mockingly referred to them as “cosmic injunctions .” Scholars in leading law reviews have called for their demise. Critics argue that national injunctions encourage forum shopping, unfairly burden the federal govern- ment, and depart from the history of equity. They also claim that national injunctions contradict the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Mendoza to exempt the federal government from offensive nonmutual issue preclusion—a doctrine that permits nonparties to benefit from a prior finding against a party from an earlier case. Critics are right to identify the connection between national injunctions and nonmutual preclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Nationwide Injunctions' Governance Problems
    NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS’ GOVERNANCE PROBLEMS: FORUM-SHOPPING, POLITICIZING COURTS, AND ERODING CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE Ronald A. Cass* _________ Abstract Nationwide injunctions—injunctions extending beyond the immediate parties to litigation and beyond the geographic bounds of the issuing court’s mandate—increasingly are used by lower federal courts to stop, alter, or condition the operation of national government policies. This typically occurs at the request of politically-invested officials and groups and targets politically consequential initiatives. While a small number of suits present matters and settings for which nationwide injunctive relief is appropriate, federal district court judges have issued nationwide injunctions in situations far beyond that set. Expanded use of nationwide injunctions— especially broad injunctions against the United States— undermines rule-of-law values, threatens the operation of courts as impartial arbiters of disputes over legal rights, erodes the Constitution’s careful separation of functions among the branches of government, and is at odds with basic aspects of the federal judiciary’s design, including its geographic divisions. Understanding the limited place for nationwide injunctions— where they are appropriate and why, along with what distinguishes the cases where they are not appropriate or even constitutionally permissible—is critical to regulating a practice that portends significant damage to law-making and law-implementing structures and to the carefully cabined role of the federal courts. * Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; Chairman and Resident Scholar, Center for the Rule of Law; President, Cass & Associates, PC; Senior Fellow, Center for the Study of the Administrative State; Senior Fellow, International Centre for Economic Research. I have benefitted from helpful discussions with and comments from Samuel Alito, Jack Beermann, Susan M.
    [Show full text]
  • How Nationwide Injunctions Have Thwarted Recent Immigration Policy
    N4_SCAGGS (DO NOT DELETE) 3/13/2020 2:25 PM How Nationwide Injunctions Have Thwarted Recent Immigration Policy Madison J. Scaggs* ABSTRACT: Nationwide injunctions are a relatively recent phenomenon that have been used with increasing frequency to halt policies, laws, and regulations. A nationwide injunction can keep a policy from going into effect in the whole nation, despite the fact that it is issued by a single district court judge. The Obama and Trump administrations have both had major immigration reform plans thwarted due to nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges. Not surprisingly, the use of nationwide injunctions has become a hotly debated topic. A recent Supreme Court concurring opinion suggested that the use of nationwide injunctions is unconstitutional. Legislation has been in the works to stop the remedy’s use. Proponents argue that the nationwide injunction is sometimes necessary, especially in the immigration context, in order to provide complete relief against nationwide suffering. Persons opposed to the nationwide injunction point to the lack of historical or textual basis for its use and its disruption of the separation of powers between the branches of the government. Ultimately, this Note argues that nationwide injunctions do not belong as a remedy in the immigration law context. I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1448 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 1450 A. THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION ......... 1450 B. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES .......................................................... 1451 C. THE PERIL OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S IMMIGRATION POLICY AT THE HANDS OF A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION ....................... 1453 D. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S STRUGGLE WITH IMMIGRATION EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS .......................................................................
    [Show full text]