Declaratory judgments and injunctions are party-specific

Justice Rehnquist in 1975:

Moreover, neither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs, and the State is free to prosecute others who may violate the statute.

Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 931 (1975).

Comments

[captcrisis]

One can say that in evaluating a petition for an injunction the equities, including harm to this particular plaintiff, are decided on a case by case basis, but with some kinds of Constitutional infringements the harm is so basic that it is equal for every plaintiff who could have brought suit.

[Magister]

Posting about a case regarding topless dancing but with no mention of topless dancing? Boring.

A discussion of Younger abstention would be more interesting.

[captcrisis]

Most clubs abstain from hiring Younger dancers, for obvious legal reasons.

[Bored Lawyer]

One might ask of Justice Rehnquist, and what about res judicata?

[tkamenick]

The uniform DJA does have language about how everyone affected by a decision must be made party to the case. That’s usually handwaved away on government-involved DJA cases (as opposed to seeking a determination on, say, a contract’s interpretation) by saying that the government represents everybody’s interest in the case – even the people adverse to the government.

But as a practical matter, the DJA becomes useless as to statutory/constitutional disputes if the only result of a successful case is the government can’t enforce the law against one person. You’d force every serious case to have to be a class action otherwise. Courts have basically interpreted DJ actions against the government as class actions without having to go through all the rigamarole.

[John F. Carr]

This rule mostly works for laws prohibiting isolated acts by individuals. If I want to burn wood in my fireplace contrary to a town bylaw prohibiting use of fireplaces, an order directing the town not to enforce the bylaw against me works fine. What if I am challenging a regulatory scheme banning collection or sale of firewood? I want other people to be able to cut down trees, chop them up, and sell parts of them to me. What if I am challenging a rule that wheelchair ramps need a particular grade, or federal-aid highway projects must convert travel lanes to bike lanes, or something else that may affect me but does not compel or prohibit a specific act on my part? People have standing to sue because they like to look at swamps.