One of the final opinions of this term is Trump vs. Casathe U.S. Supreme Court sharply restricted the power of federal courts to issue so-called universal injunctions – injunctions that benefit non-political parties in certain cases. The court held that under the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts generally cannot prohibit all enforcement of laws or policies, even if they are unconstitutional. nevertheless Casa Federal policy is involved ( Presidential Order (It is intended to limit birthright citizenship). CasaThe holding of the government also applies to federal government challenges over state policies.
Is it right or wrong as a federal issue? Casa It’s been a while. since a Decisions in 1999 I opened the door to hold the case, Almost all governments I asked the court to limit the availability of a universal injunction. Scholars paid attention, and Judge Milano D. Smith Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, said:Dissonance“It’s already 2013. Aging in the era of Congressional omissions, presidential policymaking, and federal litigation led by the state attorney general. The scholarship is primarily concerned with federal government policies and federal court relief.
But don’t make any mistakes. The debate comes to the state court. in Future legal review articlesIt will be published in Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Reviewexplore how state courts respond.
The current environment brings the perfect storm for state courts considering their remedy capabilities. With federal civil rights enforcement being reduced, major constitutional issues are being pushed more frequently to state courts. State constitutional rights are more robust, state constitutional remedies are more complete, and rooted in constitutional texts, and state courts are constructed to be more sensitive to citizens’ needs. but,”Gravity of federal law” continues to be raised, and state courts need tools to avoid lockstep.
In fact, as state officials have begun to challenge universal injunctions in state courts over the past few years, the resulting decision shows that arguments surrounded by federal debates are already being repeated in state courts.
Ohio ex rel. Yostv. Holbrook Here is the clearest example. So the Ohio Supreme Court rejected an emergency motion to maintain a temporary restraining order against state law prohibiting several forms of care that affirms the gender of minors. The court did not issue a written opinion, as the lawsuit presented a poor vehicle due to the issue of the scope of the universal injunction, but two agreements addressed the issue. The three judges agreed at one point that “it is “important” for a judge from a single county to determine whether it is appropriate for one judge from a single county to issue a statewide injunction beyond what is necessary to provide interim relief to parties in the case. In the consent barnburner, only justice described the idea of limited national equitable power as “idiot.” In her view, the Ohio courts are constitutional Obligation Prohibiting unconstitutional laws on faces.
Other cases reflect the Ohio justice debate, but the issue is less clear. Challenging the majority of the Texas Supreme Court Refusal to petition for reviewwrote about another issue with injunctive relief (requesting bonds for appeals) – that it could “create perverse incentives” such as seeking a universal injunction because it didn’t require bonds. and the territorial court, Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands“Concerns about a universal injunction based on federal separation suggest that it is “completely irrelevant to the Virgin Islands context.” Because “the Virgin Islands courts are not limited jurisdictional courts organized under Article 3, but have the power to award more than mere cases or disputes.”
These cases ask difficult questions about the nature of national jurisdiction. These complex questions are even more challenging due to the development of federal law, which could blind the institutional differences between state and federal courts. There is a difference in advising from adopting the conditions of the federal debate itself, not just federal standards. There are at least three reasons, as state courts consider the scope of their ability to remedy. Casaits ancestors and scholarships focused in particular on Article 3 of the United States Constitution.
The first is methodology. Originalist Drive Analysis of the Federal Universal Injunction. In contrast to the rapid ascending fundamentalism in the US Supreme Court, state courts are not (not necessarily) original. Some features are common among state constitutions Clauses Ensuring access to courts and legal remedies suggests the need for a flexible and broad approach to state remedies. Also, even if the state court applies the original method, the outcome will be different. State Constitution It was ratified at various political moments 1780 In 2022. Only four were ratified within 50 years of the US Constitution, with 10 being ratified during or shortly after the Warren Court.
The second is consequentialist. While universal injunctions raise practical concerns in federal courts, the same concerns do not necessarily exist in state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court selects and selects cases decided by lower courts with limited geographical scope. Thus, while a federal universal injunction can prevent penetration and promote forum shopping, it is unlikely that state court decisions have not been reconfirmed by courts with statewide jurisdiction. in Eight states Litigators in the District of Columbia have the right to appeal to the last resort court. in Most otherthe Interim Court of Appeals has statewide jurisdiction. And state judges generally answer citizens at ballot boxes Judicial election and The right to amend the constitutionpotentially sets out concerns about judicial policy making.
The third involves the nature of constitutional jurisdiction. Does the relevant constitution allow courts to provide relief to non-political parties? If the federal courts answer is no, it’s fascinating that there are state courts lined up. But doing so is to misunderstand the difference between the federal and state structures of government. Taking the bird’s eye view, state power is broader than federal power, and the balance of power is less likely to be upset by judicial review if the legislative sector is not constrained by the enumerated powers (which increases the need for judicial review to protect the interests of minorities). In the text, the federal constitution restricts federal courts to decide “case or controversy.” However, few states have similar constitutions, and state courts are appropriately Exercising broader jurisdiction. Furthermore, here too Relative ease of use Amendments to the national constitution are important. In almost every state, legislatures can introduce constitutional amendments to voters and provide jurisdiction checks.
These differences suggest that active constitutional enforcement by state courts is more constitutionally acceptable and not dangerous, even if they accept the terms of federal debate over a universal injunction.
Constance Van Clay is an assistant professor at the Bullwett School of Law at the University of Montana.
Suggested Citation: Constance Van Kley, Universal injunction in state courts, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/universal-injunctions-tate-courts
