Universality, again

Judge Howell issued an order clarifying that a piece of the Perkins Coie injunction--prohibiting the EEOC from investigating law firms for DEI policies--applies only to Perkins Coie and does not stop the EEOC from investigating other firms.

This case demonstrates the key puzzle in the universality debate--finding the stopping point for when universality is appropriate without sliding into universality for most injunctions. Complete relief does not justify universality--Perkins Coie gets everything it needs regardless of whether the EEOC can investigate Jenner & Block. They cannot squeeze this into the New Jersey argument as to birthright citizenship. On the other hand, uniformity/Equality/Fairness would justify universality--it is not fair to subject Jenner to an investigation if Perkins is protected from investigation for the same activity. But then every injunction must be universal, at least where it involves broad federal policy.

So assuming universality is necessary in the birthright-citizenship case and not here: What are the limiting principles, so we avoid the conclusion that every injunction (or at least every injunction against a federal law) must be universal.  What, if any, are the relevant differences? Some might include: Number of people affected; whether affected non-parties have the practical ability to vindicate their own rights, especially through access to counsel; the imminence of the injury to unprotected persons if they cannot go to to court to vindicate; other opportunities to assert their rights aside from the injunction. (Note that all of these sound in the balance of equities prong of the injunction, which someone (maybe Justice Barrett) suggested might be the appropriate place for these considerations).

I am not sure any of this should matter as to the scope-of-remedy. But this is the ground on which the arguments must occur.