Jump to content

User:JeffALR2020/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JeffALR2020 (talk | contribs) at 01:54, 11 March 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Judicial remedies
Legal remedies (Damages)
Equitable remedies
Related issues

A National Injunction (also known as “universal injunction,”[1] “cosmic injunction,”[2] or “nationwide injunction”[3]) is an equitable remedy courts employ to bind the federal government in its relations with nonparties.[4] In its prototypical form, a national injunction is used to restrict the federal government from enforcing a statute or regulation.[5]

National injunctions have come into prominent use and controversy during the Obama and Trump Administrations, when they have been used by federal judges to enjoin the enforcement of significant policies, including the implementation of the Deferred Actions for Parents of Americans policy[6] and the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy.[7]

History at Common Law

According to the United States Supreme Court, "the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts is the jurisdiction in equity exercised by the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary Act."[8]

At common law, courts had the equitable power to enjoin defendants with regard to the plaintiff, but typically not the world at large.[9] However, in cases where multiple parties had a common claim against the same defendant, the British Chancellor sometimes offered a remedy known as a “bill of peace.”[10] The bill of peace bound the defendant against that group of parties with a common claim, regardless of whether they were all parties in the case.[11] For example, if several tenants brought a claim against a landlord that they shared in common with all tenants, then the court of equity might issue a remedy that applied to the landlord’s relations with those tenants not before the court.[12] This order only applied to the defendant’s interactions with an identified group of similarly situated nonparties, rather than the entire world, and it depended on the group being small enough and enough actual claims being brought by members of the group.[13]

One scholar has said common law equity practices included “nothing remotely like a national injunction,"[14] while a group of legal historians took the more narrow conclusion that "no modern-style nationwide injunctions issued."[15]

History in the United States Federal Courts

First 175 Years

For the first 175 years of the republic, courts had the power to issue injunctions protecting plaintiffs but typically did not enjoin defendants with respect to nonparties, especially if that defendant was the federal government. Some scholars have estimated that American federal courts issued a dozen national injunctions during this time, while others have estimated that American federal courts issued zero national injunctions during this time.[16]

In the nineteenth century, courts occasionally enjoined a municipality or county from enforcing a challenges tax or ordinance against nonparties. This was conceived of as an extension of the “bill of peace” because it resolved a common claim by a small and cohesive group.[17] The Supreme Court in Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) said this type of suit was justified by the theory that citizens of a county or municipality have a relationship comparable to that of shareholders to a corporation.[18]

One potential explanation for the lack of national injunctions is that the federal government itself waived its sovereign immunity from suit in 1976, while another is that venue and personal jurisdiction rules for a long time restricted litigants from suing cabinet officers outside of Washington, D.C. when seeking injunctions.[19]

Some cases from this period raised questions about the lawfulness of national injunctions or similar remedies.

  • Scott v. Donald (1897) — James Donald sued the state of South Carolina for confiscating his alcohol under a statute he argued violated the federal Constitution.[20] In addition to damages, Donald the court to enjoin the state from enforcing the statute against anyone.[21] Despite agreeing that the statute was unconstitutional,[22] and despite the defendant being a state rather than the federal government, the Supreme Court held that “we are unable to wholly approve the decree entered in this case.”[23] The Court explained that “there may be others in like case with the plaintiff, and that such persons may be numerous, but such a state of facts is too conjectural to furnish a safe basis upon which a court of equity ought to grant an injunction.”[24]
  • Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan (1913) — In 1913, the Supreme Court granted—temporarily—an order “restraining the defendants . . . from enforcing or attempting to enforce the provisions of said statute, and particularly restraining them from denying to appellant and other newspaper publishers the privileges of the mail . . . .”[25] Professor Mila Sohoni interpreted the Lewis Publishing order as an “injunction barring the enforcement of the new federal law against anyone until the merits had been decided.”[26] Professor Samuel Bray interpreted it as a simple matter of estoppel because the government had already promised to the court it would not enforce the provision against anyone during litigation.[27]
  • Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) — Harriet Frothingham sued the federal government for spending money under the Maternity Act, which she argued exceeded the powers of the federal government.[28] She asked the Supreme Court to enjoin the government from carrying out the provisions of this act with regard to her and nonparties alike.[29] The Supreme Court held against her unanimously, reasoning that a Court could not provide such relief without “assume a position of authority over the governmental acts of another and co-equal department, an authority which plainly we do not possess.”[30]

New Deal Challenges

After the federal courts held numerous acts of New Deal legislation unconstitutional, they did not issue national injunctions. Instead, sometimes over a thousand individual injunctions were granted against a single provision, as each plaintiff brought suit to ensure that the statute could not apply to them.[31]

Late 20th Century

Justice Clarence Thomas has likewise written that national injunctions "emerg[ed] for the first time in the 1960s and dramatically increas[ed] in popularity only very recently."[32] Professor Samuel Bray traces "[t]he [e]mergence of [n]ational [i]njunctions" to the 1960s.[33]

In 1963, a panel for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit conditionally enjoined the Secretary of Transportation from applying his challenged wage regulation to any parties, not merely the plaintiffs.[34] Then, in 1968, the Supreme Court in Flast v. Cohen wrote approvingly in dicta, without deciding the question of relief, that the "injunctive relief sought by appellants . . . extends to any program that would have the unconstitutional features alleged in the complaint," rather than merely to local programs injuring the plaintiff.[35] And in 1973, a district judge in New York granted a preliminary injunction against the Interstate Commerce Commission that would "affect the agency in the entire scope of its authority and jurisdiction."[36]

According to the Department of Justice, national injunctions remained "exceedingly rare" from 1963 until the 1980s.[37] In the 1980s, "courts issued an average of only 1.5 nationwide injunctions per year against the Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations."[38]

______

______

______

______

According to the Department of Justice, federal courts issued 12 national injunctions against the Bush Administration.[39]

Obama Administration

According to the Department of Justice, federal courts issued 19 or 20 national injunctions against the Obama Administration.[40][41] The Fifth Circuit upheld a national injunction issued by Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas against the Administration's implementation of DACA in United States v. Texas.[42] Judge Reed O'Connor of the Western District of Texas issued a national injunction to prevent the Obama Administration from issuing its guidance that Title IX required bathroom and shower accessibility based on gender identity rather than biological sex.[43][44] When the Department of Justice requested that Judge O'Connor narrow relief to the plaintiff states, he expressly declined to do so.[45] Judge Sam R. Cummings of the Northern District of Texas issued a national injunction to prevent the Obama Administration from issuing a rule that would require employers to disclose certain activities with third parties related to dissuading labor unions.[46]

Trump Administration

According to the Department of Justice, federal courts issued 20 national injunctions against the Trump Administration in its first year alone,[47] and as of early 2020 had issued 55 such injunctions.[48]


Judge David Briones of the Western District of Texas issued a national injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from using certain funds to erect a border wall.[49]



asylum, transgender military, travel ban, census, DACA

______

______

Controversy Surrounding Lawfulness

Justices and Judges

The Supreme Court has never decided whether national injunctions are lawful.[50]

In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence to say that he was "skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions."[51] Citing the long history of common law practice as well as the lack of statutory or constitutional authority, he concluded that "[n]o persuasive defense has yet been offered for the practice."[52]

In a decision on a stay application in Department of Homeland Security v. New York et al. (2020), Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurrence . . .criticizing the lawfulness and practical consequences of injunctions that "direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case."[53] Injunctions, Justice Gorsuch explained, "raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III" because a court only has jurisdiction to "redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit."[54]

Judges defending their national injunctions have cited the broad equitable authority of courts and the possibility of harm to nonparties. The Ninth Circuit has explained that a broad injunction may be necessary to fully vindicate the rights of the parties themselves and, in the immigration context, that a national injunction is mandated by the language of the Naturalization Clause.[55] Another Ninth Circuit panel has said that the Administrative Procedure Act mandates national injunctions.[56] A Fifth Circuit panel has held that national injunctions are appropriate because district courts exercise "the judicial power" of the United States, not just their territory, and because in certain contexts, like immigration, uniformity is required.[57]

Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York has expressed concerns about the constraining effect of national injunctions on future litigation, where another court might be inclined to rule the other way on the merits but cannot do so because of the injunction.[58]

Scholarship

Professor Samuel Bray is a leading critic of national injunctions. Tracing equity practices at common law, Bray has argued that a federal court may only give an injunction that "protects the plaintiff visà-vis the defendant, wherever the plaintiff and the defendant may both happen to be."[59] It cannot "constrain the defendant’s conduct visà-vis nonparties."[60] That is because, he argues, a federal court "has no constitutional basis to decide disputes and issue remedies for those who are not parties."[61] Bray has noted that, among other problems, the current practice could lead to "conflicting injunctions," a situation where multiple parties bring suit, one court orders a defendant not to apply a statute or regulation against anyone, and another court orders the same defendant to ignore the first injunction or to continue to implement the statute or regulation.[62]

Professors David Hausman & Spencer E. Amdur _____

Professor Suzette M. Malveaux ______

Professor Michael Morley _____

Professor Mila Sohoni ________

Professor Alan Trammell has argued that preclusion principles justify national injunctions in cases "when the government acts in bad faith, including most notably when government officials fail to abide by settled law."[63]

Executive Branch

On March 10, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions authored an op-ed in National Review entitled "Nationwide Injunctions Are a Threat to Our Constitutional Order."[64] "Nationwide injunctions," he wrote, "mean that each of the more than 600 federal district judges in the United States can freeze a law or regulation throughout the country — regardless of whether the other 599 disagree."[65]

On September 13, 2018, Attorney General Sessions issued a memorandum to the Department of Justice on "Litigation Guidelines for Cases Presenting the Possibility of Nationwide Injunctions."[66] Consistent with "the Department’s considered and longstanding" opposition to national injunctions, Attorney General Sessions instructed litigators to argue that national injunctions

(1) exceed the constitutional limitations on judicial power; (2) deviate from longstanding historical exercise of equitable power; (3) impede reasoned discussion of legal issues among the lower courts; (4) undermine legal rules meant to ensure orderly resolution of disputed issues; (5) interfere with judgments proper to the other branches of government; and (6) undermine public confidence in the judiciary.[67]

On February 4, 2019, Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams reiterated the Department of Justice's opposition to "injunctions that grant relief to parties outside the case, and outside of the class action framework, when such relief is not necessary to redress the plaintiff’s injuries."[68] She remarked that "the rash of nationwide injunctions strikes at the heart of our democratic system" because a nationwide injunction "seriously impedes decision-making in the federal courts by interfering with percolation of a contested legal issue," "invites unvarnished 'judge-shopping,' undermining faith in our judiciary," and "allows unelected district court judges to issue wholesale vetoes on the domestic policy and national security decisions of our elected officials."[69]

On September 5, 2019, Attorney General William Barr authored an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled 'End Nationwide Injunctions.'[70] He criticized the effect of national injunctions on legislative and judicial deliberations, and on the limited power Article III grants to judges—especially the solo district court judges who typically issue these injunctions.[71]

Congress

On November 30, 2017, the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a hearing on "The Role and Impact of Nationwide Injunctions by District Courts."[72] At the hearing, Samuel Bray[73] and Hans von Spakovsky[74] testified on the problems with national injunctions, while Amanda Frost[75] and Michael Morley[76] defended the practice.

In September, 2019, Senator Tom Cotton and Representative Mark Meadows introduced to their respective chambers the "Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevention Act of 2019."[77][78] The Act would amend 28 U.S.C. Chapter 85 to provide that "no district court may issue any order providing injunctive relief unless the order is applicable only to (1) the parties to the case before the district court; or (2) the judicial district in which the order is issued.”[79]

On February 25, 2020, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on "Rule By District Judge: The Challenges of Universal Injunctions," considering an array of perspectives on the rise of the national injunctions and the possible policy solutions.[80] Committee Chairman Senator Lindsey Graham expressed his concern that "I don't think you can run a country this way" and Senator Dianne Feinstein expressed her interest in learning more about the practice, as she "was not really familiar with what a nationwide injunction is," but noted that national injunctions helped protect hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients from deportation.[81]

States

When District Judge Andrew Hanen enjoined the Obama Administration from enforcing DAPA so as to affect anyone, not just the parties before the court, a number of nonparty states submitted an amicus brief asserting that they did not want to be protected with the relief that was extended to them.[82] "[I]in light of the complete absence of even a claim of harm in the nonplaintiff States," they wrote, "there is no basis for forcing the injunction on us."[83]


Other Coverage

The legality of national injunctions has been publicly debated at conferences of lawyers and academics, including at the 2018 American Bar Association's Appellate Judges Education Institute (AJEI) Summit[84] and at the 2019 Federalist Society Western Chapters Conference,[85] as well as in the National Constitution Center's "We The People" podcast.[86]

Terminology

The legal world has yet to come to a consensus about what to call injunctions against the federal government that apply to nonparties.[87] In his Trump v. Hawaii concurrence, Justice Thomas noted that "[i]njunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyone" have been called both "nationwide" and "universal" injunctions,[88] but chose to use the latter term "because it is more precise."[89] Specifically, he explained, such injunctions "are distinctive because they prohibit the Government from enforcing a policy with respect to anyone, including nonparties—not because they have wide geographic breadth."[90] In his Department of Homeland Security v. New York concurrence, Justice Gorsuch noted that injunctions that "direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case" could be called "nationwide," "universal," or even "cosmic" injunctions.[91] Professor Bray has written that "'Nationwide injunction' is especially inapt, because it emphasizes territorial breadth, when the real point of distinction is that the injunction protects nonparties."[92] He chose the term "National Injunctions" because it conveyed the "distinctive fact that these injunctions constrain the national government, as opposed to state governments."[93] Jesse Panuccio has argued these injunctions should be called "non-party injunctions."[94]

References

  1. ^ Freeman, Wilson C. (May 2, 2018). "The Travel Ban Case and Nationwide Injunctions" (PDF). fas.org. Retrieved 2020-02-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. New York, 140 S. Ct. 599, 600 (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).
  3. ^ Freeman, Wilson C. (May 2, 2018). "The Travel Ban Case and Nationwide Injunctions" (PDF). fas.org. Retrieved 2020-02-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 418 (2017)
  5. ^ Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2424, 201 L. Ed. 2d 775 (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring)
  6. ^ Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex.), aff'd, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (Nov. 25, 2015)
  7. ^ Feuer, Alan (2018-02-13). "Second Federal Judge Issues Injunction to Keep DACA in Place". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  8. ^ Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 318 (1999)
  9. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 420 (2017)
  10. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 426 (2017)
  11. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 426 (2017)
  12. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 426 (2017)
  13. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 426 (2017)
  14. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 425 (2017)
  15. ^ Brief of Amici Curiae Legal Historians in Support of Plaintiff and Appellee the City of Chicago at 6, City of Chicago v. Whitaker, No. 18-2885 (7th Cir. Nov. 15, 2018)
  16. ^ Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen, Address at the Administrative Conference of the United States Forum on Nationwide Injunctions and Federal Regulatory Programs (Feb. 12, 2020).
  17. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 427 (2017)
  18. ^ Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 487 (1923)
  19. ^ Amici Curiae Legal Historians in Support of Plaintiff and Appellee the City of Chicago at 7, City of Chicago v. Whitaker, No. 18-2885 (7th Cir. Nov. 15, 2018))
  20. ^ Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58, 66 (1897)
  21. ^ Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 107, 115 (1897)
  22. ^ Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 107, 111 (1897)
  23. ^ Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 107, 115 (1897)
  24. ^ Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 107, 115 (1897)
  25. ^ Mila Sohoni History of the 'Universal' Injunction, 133 Harv. L. Rev. 920, 946 (2020)  
  26. ^ Mila Sohoni History of the 'Universal' Injunction, 133 Harv. L. Rev. 920, 946 (2020)
  27. ^ Bray, Samuel (October 18, 2019). "A Response to The Lost History of the "Universal" Injunction". Yale Journal on Regulation. Retrieved 2020-02-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  28. ^ Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 479 (1923).
  29. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 430-31 (2017)
  30. ^ Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 489 (1923)
  31. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 433-35 (2017)
  32. ^ Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2426 (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring)
  33. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 437 (2017)
  34. ^ Wirtz v. Baldor Elec. Co., 337 F.2d 518, 534 (D.C. Cir. 1963)
  35. ^ Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 89 (1968)
  36. ^ Harlem Val. Transp. Ass'n v. Stafford, 360 F. Supp. 1057, 1060 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 1973), aff'd, 500 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1974)
  37. ^ "Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams Delivers Remarks on Nationwide Injunctions at The Heritage Foundation". www.justice.gov. 2019-02-04. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  38. ^ "Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams Delivers Remarks on Nationwide Injunctions at The Heritage Foundation". www.justice.gov. 2019-02-04. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  39. ^ Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen, Address at the Administrative Conference of the United States Forum on Nationwide Injunctions and Federal Regulatory Programs (Feb. 12, 2020).
  40. ^ Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen, Address at the Administrative Conference of the United States Forum on Nationwide Injunctions and Federal Regulatory Programs (Feb. 12, 2020).
  41. ^ "Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams Delivers Remarks on Nationwide Injunctions at The Heritage Foundation". www.justice.gov. 2019-02-04. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  42. ^ Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (Nov. 25, 2015)
  43. ^ Texas v. United States, 201 F. Supp. 3d 810, 836 (N.D. Tex. 2016).
  44. ^ Korte, Gregory. "Judge in Texas blocks Obama transgender bathroom rules". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2020-03-02.
  45. ^ Gerstein, Josh. "Judge reaffirms nationwide ban on Obama transgender school bathroom policy". POLITICO. Retrieved 2020-03-02.
  46. ^ Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Perez, No. 5:16-CV-00066-C, 2016 WL 3766121, at *46 (N.D. Tex. June 27, 2016)
  47. ^ "Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams Delivers Remarks on Nationwide Injunctions at The Heritage Foundation". www.justice.gov. 2019-02-04. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  48. ^ Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen, Address at the Administrative Conference of the United States Forum on Nationwide Injunctions and Federal Regulatory Programs (Feb. 12, 2020).
  49. ^ Jordan, Miriam (2019-12-10). "Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction Blocking Border Wall Funding". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  50. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 465-66 (2017)
  51. ^ Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2425 (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring)
  52. ^ Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2429, 201 L. Ed. 2d 775 (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring)
  53. ^ Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. New York, 140 S. Ct. 599, 600 (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring)
  54. ^ Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. New York, 140 S. Ct. 599, 600 (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring)
  55. ^ Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662, 701 (9th Cir. 2017), rev'd and remanded, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018)
  56. ^ Earth Island Inst. v. Ruthenbeck, 490 F.3d 687, 699 (9th Cir. 2007), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009)
  57. ^ Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187–88 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (Nov. 25, 2015)
  58. ^ Gerstein, Josh. "Judge reaffirms nationwide ban on Obama transgender school bathroom policy". POLITICO. Retrieved 2020-03-02.
  59. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 469 (2017)
  60. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 469 (2017)
  61. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 471 (2017)
  62. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 462-64 (2017)
  63. ^ Alan M. Trammell, Demystifying Nationwide Injunctions, 98 Tex. L. Rev. 67, 67 (2020)
  64. ^ Sessions, Jeffrey (2018-03-10). "Nationwide Injunctions Are a Threat to Our Constitutional Order". National Review. Retrieved 2020-02-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  65. ^ Sessions, Jeffrey (March 10, 2018). "Nationwide Injunctions Are a Threat to Our Constitutional Order". National Review. Retrieved 2020-02-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  66. ^ Sessions, Jeffrey (September 13, 2018). "Memorandum re Litigation Guidelines for Cases Presenting the Possibility of Nationwide Injunctions". Department of Justice. Retrieved February 21, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  67. ^ Sessions, Jeffrey (September 13, 2018), Memorandum re Litigation Guidelines for Cases Presenting the Possibility of Nationwide Injunctions at 2, Department of Justice. Retrieved February 21, 2020.
  68. ^ "Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams Delivers Remarks on Nationwide Injunctions at The Heritage Foundation". www.justice.gov. 2019-02-04. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  69. ^ "Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams Delivers Remarks on Nationwide Injunctions at The Heritage Foundation". www.justice.gov. 2019-02-04. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  70. ^ Barr, William P. (2019-09-05). "Opinion | End Nationwide Injunctions". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2020-02-21.
  71. ^ Barr, William P. (2019-09-05). "Opinion | End Nationwide Injunctions". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2020-02-21.
  72. ^ "The Role and Impact of Nationwide Injunctions by District Courts | U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee". judiciary.house.gov. Retrieved 2020-02-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  73. ^ Bray, Samuel (November 30, 2017). "Statement of Professor Samuel L. Bray" (PDF). docs.house.gov. Retrieved February 21, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  74. ^ von Spakovsky, Hans (November 30, 2017). "Testimony Before House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet" (PDF). Retrieved 2020-02-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  75. ^ Frost, Amanda (November 30, 2017). "Testimony on the Role and Impact of Nationwide Injunctions by District Courts" (PDF). docs.house.gov. Retrieved February 21, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  76. ^ Morley, Michael (November 30, 2017). "Prepared Testimony of Professor Michael T. Morley Before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet" (PDF). docs.house.gov. Retrieved February 21, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  77. ^ Meadows, Mark (2019-09-11). "Actions - H.R.4292 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevention Act of 2019". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  78. ^ Cotton, Tom (2019-09-11). "Actions - S.2464 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevention Act of 2019". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  79. ^ Cotton, Tom (2019-09-11). "Text - S.2464 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevention Act of 2019". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  80. ^ "Rule by District Judge: The Challenges of Universal Injunctions | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary". www.judiciary.senate.gov. Retrieved 2020-03-01.
  81. ^ "Rule by District Judge: The Challenges of Universal Injunctions| Hearings". www.judiciary.senate.gov. Retrieved 2020-03-01.
  82. ^ Brief of the Amicus States of Washington et al., in Support of Motion to Stay District Court Preliminary Injunction, Texas v. United States, No. 15-40238 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2015)
  83. ^ Brief of the Amicus States of Washington et al., in Support of Motion to Stay District Court Preliminary Injunction, Texas v. United States, No. 15-40238 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2015)
  84. ^ Bashman, Howard (February 5, 2019). "Nationwide Injunctions: Are They Good Law? Are They Good Policy?". www.americanbar.org. Retrieved 2020-02-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  85. ^ "2019 Annual Western Chapters Conference". fedsoc.org. January 26, 2019. Retrieved 2020-02-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  86. ^ "When Should Judges Issue Nationwide Injunctions? | The National Constitution Center". constitutioncenter.org. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  87. ^ Mila Sohoni History of the 'Universal' Injunction, 133 Harv. L. Rev. 920, 922 (2020)
  88. ^ Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2424 (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring)
  89. ^ Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2424 n.1 (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring)
  90. ^ Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2424 n.1 (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring)
  91. ^ Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. New York, 140 S. Ct. 599, 600 (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring)
  92. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 419 n. 5 (2017)
  93. ^ Samuel Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 419 n. 5 (2017)
  94. ^ Panuccio, Jesse. "Every Judge a King, Every Court Supreme: The Problem of Non-party Injunctions, testimony at Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate on "Rule by District Judge: The Challenges of Universal Injunctions"" (PDF). judiciary.senate.gov.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:JeffALR2020/sandbox&oldid=944977260"