- May 17, 2013
- 68,159
- 33,191
- 2,290
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1093881/download
https://administrativestate.gmu.edu...ationwide-Injunctions-Governance-Problems.pdf
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
V. Politicizing the Courts: Incentives and Effects A second problem with the expanding use of nationwide injunctions, linked to the rule-of-law problems from forumshopping, is the increasing politicization of the courts. This is the cause and consequence of forum-shopping for the cases that are most publicly notable and of most concern. A. Politically-Motivated Litigation: Quagmire in the Making
While any inducement to forum-shopping and increased divergence among potential decisions from different federal courts is problematic, the critical exacerbating factor for disputes about nationwide injunctions plainly is the underlying cases’ connection to political issues. Notable cases where nationwide injunctions are sought—such as the immigration-related cases discussed above— have had obvious political overtones, as especially polarizing programs can be stopped or dramatically slowed with an injunction that has broad scope and wide reach. Further, plaintiffs strongly identified with political causes— politically active interest groups and political officials (largely state attorneys general, a class of officials who are politically connected, politically selected, and often interested in higher political office)— frequently have been the moving parties in cases where nationwide injunctions are sought.79 Indeed, the pattern that emerges is the routine use of suits seeking nationwide injunctions in highly politically-salient cases with relatively consistent blocs of public officials and interest groups, from relatively consistent parts of the nation, lining up in opposition.80 Reflecting the same pattern seen in the actual political arena, Republicans from “red states” opposed President Obama’s administration on matters related to health care, environmental and public land regulation, and immigration, while Democrats from “blue states” have opposed President Trump’s administration on the same issues.
https://administrativestate.gmu.edu...ationwide-Injunctions-Governance-Problems.pdf
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
V. Politicizing the Courts: Incentives and Effects A second problem with the expanding use of nationwide injunctions, linked to the rule-of-law problems from forumshopping, is the increasing politicization of the courts. This is the cause and consequence of forum-shopping for the cases that are most publicly notable and of most concern. A. Politically-Motivated Litigation: Quagmire in the Making
While any inducement to forum-shopping and increased divergence among potential decisions from different federal courts is problematic, the critical exacerbating factor for disputes about nationwide injunctions plainly is the underlying cases’ connection to political issues. Notable cases where nationwide injunctions are sought—such as the immigration-related cases discussed above— have had obvious political overtones, as especially polarizing programs can be stopped or dramatically slowed with an injunction that has broad scope and wide reach. Further, plaintiffs strongly identified with political causes— politically active interest groups and political officials (largely state attorneys general, a class of officials who are politically connected, politically selected, and often interested in higher political office)— frequently have been the moving parties in cases where nationwide injunctions are sought.79 Indeed, the pattern that emerges is the routine use of suits seeking nationwide injunctions in highly politically-salient cases with relatively consistent blocs of public officials and interest groups, from relatively consistent parts of the nation, lining up in opposition.80 Reflecting the same pattern seen in the actual political arena, Republicans from “red states” opposed President Obama’s administration on matters related to health care, environmental and public land regulation, and immigration, while Democrats from “blue states” have opposed President Trump’s administration on the same issues.
