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 equita…
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.
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.