National injunctions and the APA appear in an argument at the Court

Aaron Nielson has a fascinating post at the Notice and Comment blog on Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California, a case the Supreme Court heard argument in earlier this week. Professor Nielson describes two arguments made by the Deputy Solicitor General, arguing on behalf of the United States. I want to call attention to the first one, which is a rejection of national/nationwide/universal injunctions, on grounds of both equity principles and Article III, and even in APA cases. It is excellent that the Department of Justice is continuing to hold this line (which can be traced back, I think, through every administration to that of President George W. Bush). You can read this on page 49 of the transcript.

If readers want to go further on what "set aside" means in the Administrative Procedure Act, I highly recommend John Harrison's piece in the Yale Journal on Regulation's Bulletin called "Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act Does Not Call for Universal Injunctions or Other Universal Remedies." You can also find a precis of Professor Harrison's argument here.

Comments

[dwb68]

The administration holds the line on nationwide injunctions when it suits them, and advocates for them when it suits them. Depends what the case is about.

[Sarcastr0]

Administrations play on the legal field they're given. I very much hope the Court narrows this to something consistent.