Thread by @JoshMBlackman

1/ .@NoahRFeldman writes that #SCOTUS will not disturb power of nationwide injunctions, bc such a ruling would create more work - "They would have to field requests constantly for nationwide injunctions in cases that haven’t yet been resolved by the lower courts."

2/ I disagree. Nationwide injunctions create far more work for the Justices. Whenever court of appeals declines to stay injunction, the federal gov runs to #SCOTUS for emergency stay. The Justices do not like these urgent matters, w/o the benefit of percolation.

3/ Moreover, there is little difference between parties asking SCOTUS to make an injunction "nationwide," and parties asking SCOTUS to affirm a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction.

4/ @NoahRFeldman also asserts that #SCOTUS has the power to issue a true nationwide injunction: "After all, it’s the only court with a truly national jurisdiction."

5/ I vigorously disagree with this point. #SCOTUS does not have the power to bind everyone, nationwide. #SCOTUS can only decide a dispute between X and Y.

6/ Other parties can choose to follow that precedent. Or lower courts can "domesticate" the #SCOTUS judgment. But the Justices do not have a nationwide jurisdiction.

7/ The irrepressible myth of Cooper v. Aaron lives on papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…