Today's CASA decision mentions "Bray" 23 times (some int he syllabus maybe). Congratulations!
I just posted the following on Carrie Severino''s X post on it, and would be curious what the substackers here think. I read the opinion and concurrences hastily, and the dissent hardly at all, though this is something the dissent ought to be talking about instead of unconstitutionality generally.
(1)The opinion's logic stops not just nationwide injunctions, but districtwide injunctions. They flinch at that, though.
"The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate; we therefore leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments."
(2) The majority says an injunction, prelim or final, only binds the case of the two parties in English equity, and now. So if the EPA uses a new regulation to unlawfully fine Eric's factory and Eric wins in court, and the next day the EPA fines Bob's factory, Bob must sue too.
(3) That may well be correct law, but it is a big change. There will need to be a class action or a State suing to stop a regulation, or a bluff where the govt needs to get sued 1000 times before it gives up.
Sounds good. It's frustrating to see how judges throw out everything that's special about a preliminary injunction and base their result entirely on the merits, without a trial or proper procedure. If they want to rule on the merits on just the law, they should deny the preliminary injunction and invite a motion to dismiss instead.
Today's CASA decision mentions "Bray" 23 times (some int he syllabus maybe). Congratulations!
I just posted the following on Carrie Severino''s X post on it, and would be curious what the substackers here think. I read the opinion and concurrences hastily, and the dissent hardly at all, though this is something the dissent ought to be talking about instead of unconstitutionality generally.
(1)The opinion's logic stops not just nationwide injunctions, but districtwide injunctions. They flinch at that, though.
"The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate; we therefore leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments."
(2) The majority says an injunction, prelim or final, only binds the case of the two parties in English equity, and now. So if the EPA uses a new regulation to unlawfully fine Eric's factory and Eric wins in court, and the next day the EPA fines Bob's factory, Bob must sue too.
(3) That may well be correct law, but it is a big change. There will need to be a class action or a State suing to stop a regulation, or a bluff where the govt needs to get sued 1000 times before it gives up.
Sounds good. It's frustrating to see how judges throw out everything that's special about a preliminary injunction and base their result entirely on the merits, without a trial or proper procedure. If they want to rule on the merits on just the law, they should deny the preliminary injunction and invite a motion to dismiss instead.