I woke up today with a plan to read Justice Coney-Barret's opinion on nationwide injunctions. I got about 5 minutes into it and put it down. It was wrong and demonstratively so right out of the gate. It proceeds from a false proposition: That history shows that single
federal courts lack the power to enforce nationwide injunctions against non-parties. That's wrong and I say that after practicing over thirty-years in an area of law with a well-known nationwide injunction that also applies, in circumstances, world-wide.
It's triggered by the filing of a small petition before an Art. 1 federal court with the power referred to it by the Art 3 court and binds all persons immediately. If they act without knowledge of this injunction they'll likely be ordered
to return to the status quo when the injunction was imposed. If they acted with knowledge of the injunction they can face massive financial consequences. The only distinction that might have made for some interesting discussion in the opinion is
that the power to impose that injunction was authorized by Congress. The Automatic Stay of 11 USC 362 of the US Bankruptcy Code codifies equitable doctrines derived from the British Ecclesiastic courts and applies to all the property of a debtor upon the
filing of the petition regarding all property wherever located world-wide. And justice Coney-Barret didn't even mention it and explain how an Art 1 judge has a power that she just stripped from all the Art 3 judges. The answer would have been simple: Because Congress authorized
it and the cure for this limitation will be through enacting an amendment to the law derived from the Judiciary Act of 1789 and once again put the power to say what the law is back in the hands of Congress.
Thus, as always, the solution to our problem is voting.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
