Recently, a federal judge in Florida struck down the CDC’s mask requirement for mass transit. There were countless legal and factual errors in the judge’s decision, but critics seem to be focusing on the nature of the ruling, arguing that it is unconstitutional for a single judge to stop a federal policy nationwide.
The so-called nationwide or “universal” injunction has been a thorn in the side of at least the last few administrations. For President Barack Obama, federal judges in Texas blocked various policies regarding the environment, health care and more. For Donald Trump, immigration policies such as the travel ban and many other measures were held up by individual judges, often in blue states. Now, it is COVID-19 mitigation measures being struck down by judges in red states.
For most of us, something just feels wrong with many of these nationwide injunctions. It doesn’t seem fair that a single judge could block a policy that applies to citizens across the country. It also seems undemocratic to allow a judge who wasn’t elected by the people to override the will of elected officials in Congress and the White House. It’s especially galling when litigants seeking to block federal policies can shop for ideologically friendly judges who might be out of the legal mainstream.
