« Judicial departmentalism and U.S. v. Nixon | Main | China’s “404” Internet Management: The Crippling Practical Powerlessness of Legal Omnipotence »

Sunday, May 06, 2018

Bray on conflicting universal injunctions

One of the problems with universal injunctions is the risk of conflicting universal injunctions--Ct I enjoins government to do X universally, while Ct II enjoins government to refrain from doing X, universally. This almost happened with DAPA--after affirmance of the Fifth Circuit injunction prohibiting enforcement of DAPA, lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Illinois and New York, seeking declarations that the Fifth Circuit injunction did not affect enforcement of DAPA in states that were not party to Texas; those cases were dismissed before courts reached that point.

The situation may arise again over DACA rescission--judges in the Northern District of California, Eastern District of New York, and District of the District of Columbia have issued universal injunctions requiring the federal government to continue enforcing the DACA policy and granting or renewing DACA status for eligible recipients. As Sam Bray discusses, seven states have filed suit in the Southern District of Texas (naturally), seeking a universal injunction prohibiting the federal government from granting or renewing DACA status. If issued, it would create imposing directly conflicting obligations on the government--required by one court to continue granting DACA status to all persons everyone, required by one court to refrain from granting DACA status to any persons anywhere.

Bray describes a "fight to the death" between universal injunctions and the principle that a judgment resolves issues between parties to a lawsuit, but does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on May 6, 2018 at 11:19 PM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman | Permalink


Isn't the right answer (at least as long as universal injunctions that affect strangers to the litigation are permitted) to require the district court in the second-filed case to stay proceedings, and direct the plaintiffs in the second-filed case to intervene as parties in the first-filed case? That might create a race to the courthouse, but that would hardly be unique to this context. Better a race to the courthouse than conflicting injunctions.

Larry Rosenthal

Posted by: Lawrence Rosenthal | May 7, 2018 12:38:37 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.