Read on Twitter
Universal-Injunctions Twitter: Footnote 7 of the DACA opinion seems to duck the scope-of-injunction issue b/c vacatur remedy means PIs not needed.
1) The clear implication is that Mila Sohoni is right that vacatur is not limited to parties.
1) The clear implication is that Mila Sohoni is right that vacatur is not limited to parties.
2) The subtler implication, I think, is that if there is no categorical Art III bar on applying vacatur to nonparties, then there is no categorical Art III bar on applying an injunction to nonparties. (There could be non-Art III problems.) What do you think?
New datapoint. Barr v. AAPC, BK fn8: "a provision is declared invalid & cannot be lawfully enforced against others," contrasting w/ CT who'd say invalid provision "cannot be enforced against the plaintiff." More bread crumbs that there's no Art3 issue with universal injunctions?
More footnote news! Little Sisters, n6, Thomas writes "at least one party must demonstrate Article III standing for
each claim for relief."
Relevance: (1) "one good plaintiff" rule intact; (2) undercuts Art3 standing objection to universal injunctions
each claim for relief."
Relevance: (1) "one good plaintiff" rule intact; (2) undercuts Art3 standing objection to universal injunctions
The companion case (Trump v. Penn) raised the universal-injunction issue, but Court doesn't need to reach it. But this footnote adds more bread crumbs.
I'm going to try to write up something short on the three footnotes mentioned in this thread. Will share when ready.
