Law, disrupted

Universal Injunctions: A Conversation with Professor Samuel Bray


Listen Later

John is joined by Samuel L. Bray, the John N. Matthews Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School.  They discuss the increasing—and controversial— use of universal (often called “nationwide”) injunctions.  Universal injunctions are court orders that block government policies not just for the parties to a case, but for everyone, including nonparties to the litigation.  The term “nationwide injunctions” suggests that the controversy over them stems from the geographic scope of the injunctions.  However, federal district courts have long issued nationwide and international injunctions in many fields, including patent enforcement.  The issue raised by universal injunctions is that they regulate the government’s behavior toward non-parties.

Universal injunctions have proliferated in the past ten years, with nearly every major presidential initiative—regardless of administration—being halted by a single district court judge somewhere in the country.  Historically, such sweeping injunctions were virtually nonexistent until the 1960s.  Injunctions would apply only to the parties in a case, allowing the legal issues to percolate through multiple appellate courts before potentially reaching the Supreme Court for definitive resolution.

Proponents argue that universal injunctions ensure equality and efficiency by preventing unconstitutional policies from being applied to anyone, not just the plaintiffs in the case at hand.  Critics argue universal injunctions undermine democratic governance, short-circuit legal development, and encourage forum shopping and rushed decision-making.  These injunctions may also produce class action outcomes without meeting the legal requirements for a class.

The Supreme Court is now poised to address the issues posed by universal injunctions, in a case involving birthright citizenship.  Professor Bray believes the Court will limit universal injunctions using the equitable tradition codified in the Judiciary Act, which did not historically allow such remedies.  He expects the Court to reaffirm that injunctions should provide relief only to the parties in the case unless a class is certified.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

...more
View all episodesView all episodes
Download on the App Store

Law, disruptedBy Law, disrupted

  • 4.8
  • 4.8
  • 4.8
  • 4.8
  • 4.8

4.8

64 ratings


More shows like Law, disrupted

View all
Freakonomics Radio by Freakonomics Radio + Stitcher

Freakonomics Radio

32,105 Listeners

Fareed Zakaria GPS by CNN Podcasts

Fareed Zakaria GPS

3,439 Listeners

Bloomberg Law by Bloomberg

Bloomberg Law

383 Listeners

Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer by Legal Talk Network

Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer

487 Listeners

Pivot by New York Magazine

Pivot

9,555 Listeners

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments by Oyez

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

674 Listeners

The Lawfare Podcast by The Lawfare Institute

The Lawfare Podcast

6,308 Listeners

Stay Tuned with Preet by Preet Bharara

Stay Tuned with Preet

32,328 Listeners

Interesting Times with Ross Douthat by New York Times Opinion

Interesting Times with Ross Douthat

7,241 Listeners

Advisory Opinions by The Dispatch

Advisory Opinions

3,905 Listeners

The Ezra Klein Show by New York Times Opinion

The Ezra Klein Show

16,001 Listeners

Divided Argument by Will Baude, Dan Epps

Divided Argument

744 Listeners

Honestly with Bari Weiss by The Free Press

Honestly with Bari Weiss

8,784 Listeners

Money Stuff: The Podcast by Bloomberg

Money Stuff: The Podcast

397 Listeners

Prof G Markets by Vox Media Podcast Network

Prof G Markets

1,429 Listeners