Professor Mila Sohoni of Stanford Law School, one of the nation's leading contributors to the debate over universal injunctions, weighs in on the implications of Thursday's oral argument.
It strikes me that this problem is somewhat unique to cases where the defendant is the federal government and the challenged rule, policy, or action inherently applies “nationwide.” Enjoining an inherently nationwide rule in some districts but not others seems incredibly Balkanized.
The real problem is judge shopping as amply illustrated in recent years and it runs in both directions, albeit exacerbated in situations where there’s venue in a one-judge district with a judge notorious for ideological bias. Not naming names.
One possible solution would be to limit jurisdiction to issue such orders to the DC district court although this could create logistical hurdles for plaintiffs. Another would be to broaden the pool of judges who could hear a case with local origin but national effect.
Thank you for this excellent analysis!
It strikes me that this problem is somewhat unique to cases where the defendant is the federal government and the challenged rule, policy, or action inherently applies “nationwide.” Enjoining an inherently nationwide rule in some districts but not others seems incredibly Balkanized.
The real problem is judge shopping as amply illustrated in recent years and it runs in both directions, albeit exacerbated in situations where there’s venue in a one-judge district with a judge notorious for ideological bias. Not naming names.
One possible solution would be to limit jurisdiction to issue such orders to the DC district court although this could create logistical hurdles for plaintiffs. Another would be to broaden the pool of judges who could hear a case with local origin but national effect.
This is a truly helpful article. I now understand, better than I had, the argument over universal injunctions.
Wow, this is a great piece.