Is this universal injunction issue a question of jurisdiction or something else?
In other words, in this CTA case, as an example, what is the legal basis for the court's asserting jurisdiction "universally" rather than over the particular plaintiffs?
I have an uneasy feeling I'm going down the wrong path, but here goes. If Congress can def…
Is this universal injunction issue a question of jurisdiction or something else?
In other words, in this CTA case, as an example, what is the legal basis for the court's asserting jurisdiction "universally" rather than over the particular plaintiffs?
I have an uneasy feeling I'm going down the wrong path, but here goes. If Congress can define (limit) the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, why can't Congress address the universal injunction question?
I think there's broad consensus that Congress *can* address the subject of universal injunctions, whether by specifically authorizing them or prohibiting them (at least in most cases). But a big part of the current debate is whether *existing* law allows for them, which depends to some degree on how you understand the scope of the equitable powers that Congress has given federal courts the power to exercise as part of the subject-matter jurisdiction it has conferred upon them. So the fight isn't over what Congress *could* do so much as it is over what Congress has *already* done.
Is this universal injunction issue a question of jurisdiction or something else?
In other words, in this CTA case, as an example, what is the legal basis for the court's asserting jurisdiction "universally" rather than over the particular plaintiffs?
I have an uneasy feeling I'm going down the wrong path, but here goes. If Congress can define (limit) the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, why can't Congress address the universal injunction question?
I think there's broad consensus that Congress *can* address the subject of universal injunctions, whether by specifically authorizing them or prohibiting them (at least in most cases). But a big part of the current debate is whether *existing* law allows for them, which depends to some degree on how you understand the scope of the equitable powers that Congress has given federal courts the power to exercise as part of the subject-matter jurisdiction it has conferred upon them. So the fight isn't over what Congress *could* do so much as it is over what Congress has *already* done.
Thank you for the clarification. I learn a great deal from your legal newsletters/analyses and so appreciate them.