If the Supreme Court scraps universal injunctions, obtaining relief from unconstitutional laws will become much more expensive and time consuming for citizens
Universal injunctions present some very thorny policy issues. One voter’s “tool against government lawlessness” is another voter’s “thwarting of the will of the electorate.” And it’s not always true, as the author seems to assume, that every issuance of an injunction actually means the government’s behavior is lawless. If that was the case, then no injunction would ever be overturned on appeal. And we know that’s not the case.
As a libertarian, I incline toward the former view, but I am not unsympathetic to the frustration arising from the combination of forum-shopping and activist judges.
You either didn't read the piece or didn't read it closely. The author never says that injunctions are never wrong. It acknowledges the problem of forum shopping an outlines a solution.
I read it thoroughly, thank you. You apparently did not bother to understand my comment, which did not state that “the author thinks universal injunctions are never wrong.” My specific point was that throughout the article, the author presumes underlying government lawlessness in the case of each injunction (even though some such actions are merely political disagreements in the form of a lawsuit and/or honest disagreements about the interpretation or execution of the law, not necessarily “lawlessness”). That’s all. It has nothing to do with whether the author realizes there are problems with universal injunctions. He clearly does. And I agree with several of the proposed suggestions.
Yep, classic double-edged sword, here. But protecting against government lawlessness should rule the day.
Universal injunctions present some very thorny policy issues. One voter’s “tool against government lawlessness” is another voter’s “thwarting of the will of the electorate.” And it’s not always true, as the author seems to assume, that every issuance of an injunction actually means the government’s behavior is lawless. If that was the case, then no injunction would ever be overturned on appeal. And we know that’s not the case.
As a libertarian, I incline toward the former view, but I am not unsympathetic to the frustration arising from the combination of forum-shopping and activist judges.
You either didn't read the piece or didn't read it closely. The author never says that injunctions are never wrong. It acknowledges the problem of forum shopping an outlines a solution.
I read it thoroughly, thank you. You apparently did not bother to understand my comment, which did not state that “the author thinks universal injunctions are never wrong.” My specific point was that throughout the article, the author presumes underlying government lawlessness in the case of each injunction (even though some such actions are merely political disagreements in the form of a lawsuit and/or honest disagreements about the interpretation or execution of the law, not necessarily “lawlessness”). That’s all. It has nothing to do with whether the author realizes there are problems with universal injunctions. He clearly does. And I agree with several of the proposed suggestions.