The Supreme Court may have eliminated the district court practice of entering universal injunctions in suits against the federal government in Trump v. CASA, but this is but one step toward reining in judicial overreach by district courts, for reasons I explain in my latest Civitas Outlook column.
A taste:
In a sweeping and compelling opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a majority of the Court concluded that universal injunctions exceed the scope of the judicial power under the Judiciary Act. As Justice Barrett explained, Congress never granted district courts the authority to enjoin the federal government from taking action against parties not before the court. This is true no matter how egregious or objectionable the government action is.
"A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power," Justice Barrett explained. While it is commonly remarked that it is the province and duty of federal courts to "say what the law is," and police the lawfulness of executive branch action, "federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch." Rather, "they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them."
