Universal Injunctions Are Dead; Long Live Universal Remedies?

Trump v. CASA was important, but it is not clear district courts have gotten the message.

The Supreme Court may have eliminated the district court practice of entering universal injunctions in suits against the federal government in Trump v. CASA, but this is but one step toward reining in judicial overreach by district courts, for reasons I explain in my latest Civitas Outlook column.

A taste:

In a sweeping and compelling opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a majority of the Court concluded that universal injunctions exceed the scope of the judicial power under the Judiciary Act. As Justice Barrett explained, Congress never granted district courts the authority to enjoin the federal government from taking action against parties not before the court. This is true no matter how egregious or objectionable the government action is.

"A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power," Justice Barrett explained. While it is commonly remarked that it is the province and duty of federal courts to "say what the law is," and police the lawfulness of executive branch action, "federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch." Rather, "they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them."

For reasons I explain, district courts are likely to continue giving broad relief in some cases--and there are signs that too many district court judges think the answer to executive branch overreach is for the judiciary to respond in kind.

The Court may have trimmed the sails of district court remedial overreach in Trump v. CASA, but there is more work to be done to prevent the spread of an "imperial Judiciary." Just as lower courts took liberties with their equitable authority to issue injunctions, some district courts have been too quick to find litigants have standing to sue, too willing to entertain suits against memoranda and presidential directives before they have been implemented or acted upon, and too ready to issue orders directing all manner of executive branch conduct. The justices have reversed some of the most egregious of these actions, but not enough (yet) to keep district courts coloring within the lines.

In Trump v. CASA, Justice Barrett explained how judges should understand their role in our constitutional republic. For the time being, it seems a great many district court judges prefer Justice Jackson's vision instead.