General Discussion

No paywall link: https://archive.is/kbIhX

When I was in law school some 40 years ago, I took a course in federal civil procedure (we called the class "Mystery Courts" because the rules and jurisdiction issues can be pretty arcane). At the time I had no idea there could be any such thing as a nationwide injunction; the issue was never discussed at all, and I just understood that a court's decision was limited to the parties to the case. But I've been out of the law business for awhile, so when a few years ago that crackpot Kacsmaryk in Texas tried to outlaw mifepristone for abortions on a nationwide basis I wondered, Can he even do that? I'd assumed that his power was limited to the parties to the case and was surprised to learn otherwise. I just read Barrett's decision, and I can't say that it's wrong, at least historically. This was a typically originalist decision. The modern problem, though, is that nationwide injunctions seem to be the only immediate remedy against nationwide executive orders that are arguably unconstitutional and that previous presidents weren't doing. While the decision is solid as a matter of precedent, it leaves plaintiffs in the position of having to challenge Trump's shitty EOs in multiple courts, with the possibility of inconsistent decisions to be sorted only at some later date, or file class actions, which are cumbersome. On the other hand, Kacsmaryk and similar judicial troglodytes are also sidelined, which is definitely a good thing.