As I listened to the oral argument and read through the Administration's filings in Trump v. Casa (the "nationwide" or "non-party" or "universal" injunction case), I was puzzled by the Solicitor General's repeated reference to the Supreme Court's power to issue "binding nationwide precedent," rather than its power to issue "binding nationwide injunctions" - the latter being what I thought the case was about.
A few examples:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So can I ask you a question? Your theory here is that Article III and principles of equity both prohibit federal courts from issuing universal injunctions. Do I have your argument correct?
GENERAL SAUER: We argue both of those and there are independent reasons.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: You argue both of those?
GENERAL SAUER: Yeah.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: If that's true, that means even the Supreme Court doesn't have that power.
GENERAL SAUER: The Supreme Court would have the authority to issue binding precedent nationwide, but as this Court --
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But we couldn't enforce it universally - is that your argument?
GENERAL SAUER: If there was a decision that violated the precedent of the Court, then the affected plaintiffs could get a separate judgment.
