This past week, in another win for originalism, SCOTUS put a stop to so-called universal injunctions.
They’re a relatively recent development, where district courts issue nationwide injunctions applying to anyone, anywhere, even if they aren’t parties to the lawsuit.
SCOTUS was faced with a whole new breed of district courts run amok in lawfare against the President. I suspect that's what prompted Barrett to conclude, in a footnote, that nationwide injunctions were better described as "universal injunctions."
Even a traditional nationwide injunction can wreak havoc with the rule of law, I remembered as I read through the opinion.
That's what happened in the “paper towel case” - a secondary trademark infringement decision where the Fourth Circuit nixed a district court's nationwide injunction.
It shows how courts in different circuits are supposed to respect one another - applying principles of "comity."
In that case, Georgia-Pacific discovered one of its competitors was selling a cheaper version of its paper towels to distributors for use in Georgia Pacific-branded dispensers.
Georgia-Pacific was big mad over these "stuffing practices" and started suing all over the place - including courts in the Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits.
It sued them in the Eastern District of North Carolina and won.
After the jury returned its verdict, the NC district court entered a permanent, nationwide injunction prohibiting the defendant from directly or indirectly infringing Georgia-Pacific’s trademark rights.
But there was a problem. In its lawsuits against other distributors in the Sixth and Eighth circuits, Georgia-Pacific lost.
Now what?
On appeal, because the plaintiff had litigated the same contributory liability issue in two other parallel actions in two other circuits that reached opposing outcomes, the Fourth Circuit held that “equity requires that injunctions be carefully tailored, especially where, as here, questions of inter-circuit comity are involved.”
Just because the district court had the power to issue a nationwide injunction doesn’t mean it should. That was an abuse of discretion, and the appeals court limited its scope accordingly.
And what about all the other circuits outside the Eighth and the Sixth? Should the injunction reach those circuits that had not yet considered the issues presented in the Fourth Circuit?
Again the court said no. Principles of comity apply, and the other circuits should be free to resolve the issues for themselves.
SCOTUS didn’t address principles of comity last week because it didn’t have to. It looked back to 1789 and simply held that Congress never authorized the federal courts to issue universal injunctions in the first place.
But the paper towel case is an important reminder of how even run-of-the-mill nationwide injunctions can wreak havoc with good old-fashioned principles of comity.
I wrote about Georgia-Pacific v. Von Drehle (4th Cir. 2015) here (link embedded):
secondarytrademarkinfringement.com
They’re a relatively recent development, where district courts issue nationwide injunctions applying to anyone, anywhere, even if they aren’t parties to the lawsuit.
SCOTUS was faced with a whole new breed of district courts run amok in lawfare against the President. I suspect that's what prompted Barrett to conclude, in a footnote, that nationwide injunctions were better described as "universal injunctions."
Even a traditional nationwide injunction can wreak havoc with the rule of law, I remembered as I read through the opinion.
That's what happened in the “paper towel case” - a secondary trademark infringement decision where the Fourth Circuit nixed a district court's nationwide injunction.
It shows how courts in different circuits are supposed to respect one another - applying principles of "comity."
In that case, Georgia-Pacific discovered one of its competitors was selling a cheaper version of its paper towels to distributors for use in Georgia Pacific-branded dispensers.
Georgia-Pacific was big mad over these "stuffing practices" and started suing all over the place - including courts in the Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits.
It sued them in the Eastern District of North Carolina and won.
After the jury returned its verdict, the NC district court entered a permanent, nationwide injunction prohibiting the defendant from directly or indirectly infringing Georgia-Pacific’s trademark rights.
But there was a problem. In its lawsuits against other distributors in the Sixth and Eighth circuits, Georgia-Pacific lost.
Now what?
On appeal, because the plaintiff had litigated the same contributory liability issue in two other parallel actions in two other circuits that reached opposing outcomes, the Fourth Circuit held that “equity requires that injunctions be carefully tailored, especially where, as here, questions of inter-circuit comity are involved.”
Just because the district court had the power to issue a nationwide injunction doesn’t mean it should. That was an abuse of discretion, and the appeals court limited its scope accordingly.
And what about all the other circuits outside the Eighth and the Sixth? Should the injunction reach those circuits that had not yet considered the issues presented in the Fourth Circuit?
Again the court said no. Principles of comity apply, and the other circuits should be free to resolve the issues for themselves.
SCOTUS didn’t address principles of comity last week because it didn’t have to. It looked back to 1789 and simply held that Congress never authorized the federal courts to issue universal injunctions in the first place.
But the paper towel case is an important reminder of how even run-of-the-mill nationwide injunctions can wreak havoc with good old-fashioned principles of comity.
I wrote about Georgia-Pacific v. Von Drehle (4th Cir. 2015) here (link embedded):
secondarytrademarkinfringement.com
Link to Trump v. CASA:
supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf…
supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf…
More choice words from the 4th Circuit on overreaching nationwide injunctions - they're an "unseemly affront" to other courts - and they're bound to leave litigants in other states confused:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
