Not-so-hot-take:
The "nationwide injunctions" debate is an analytical mess. The fight isn't over a district court's power to exercise authority outside of its boundaries; it's over whether district courts can bar defendants from engaging in the same conduct against non-parties.
The "nationwide injunctions" debate is an analytical mess. The fight isn't over a district court's power to exercise authority outside of its boundaries; it's over whether district courts can bar defendants from engaging in the same conduct against non-parties.
Reasonable people can and will certainly disagree about the circumstances in which district courts ought to be able to bar defendants from acting against non-parties. But that's just as much of an issue within the district court's territorial jurisdiction as it is outside of it.
And in the other direction, it's well-settled that, so long as a district court has jurisdiction over the defendants, it can issue relief to the _plaintiffs_ transcending its borders. Those "nationwide" injunctions are less objectionable because this isn't really about territory.
I understand the allure of using terms like "nationwide" or "cosmic" injunctions, but this is all a bogeyman. The real fight is a much nerdier, more complicated, and less partisan one over a really important procedural issue about the proper scope of _all_ injunctive relief.
