In Part I of this Article, I discuss the existing law and current debates surrounding nationwide injunctions. I consider the origins of both the apparent recent surge in the issuance of nationwide injunctions and the apparent recent surge in skepticism concerning nationwide injunctions. In Part II, I analyze the potential justification for issuance of a nationwide injunction that I find most compelling, and on which basis I argue a court is well within the bounds of Article III notwithstanding the indirect benefits of such injunction to nonparties. In Part III, I consider three other sometimesasserted justifications that I argue courts should rule are insufficient reasons to grant nationwide injunctions, whether on Article III grounds or simply as a prudential matter. In Part IV, I analyze two problems with nationwide injunctions that I find particularly problematic. I argue that these problems, in combination with numerous other disadvantages of nationwide injunctions noted by other commentators, should move courts to attempt reforms aimed at limiting the circumstances under which nationwide injunctions may be issued. In Part V, I discuss potential reform ideas. I conclude that both substantive limits and certain procedural requirements would help limit the issuance of nationwide injunctions to cases in which they are truly justified.
Milan D. Smith Jr.,
Only Where Justified: Toward Limits and Explanatory Requirements for Nationwide Injunctions,
Notre Dame L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol95/iss5/6