Universal Injunctions and the Politics of Restraint

In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court decided a technical question of judicial relief that has big implications for the separation of powers, the role of the courts, and executive power. It limited what are called “universal injunctions,” where a federal court invalidates executive action everywhere, not just for the people who brought a case.What is the legal justification for this decision? What are the practical consequences? Why did it happen now? And what are the political implications – and maybe even political causes – of the ruling? What does all of this tell us about future battles between the executive and judicial branch?To try to find out the answers to those questions. I’m here with two of my colleagues at the University of Chicago – Ethan Bueno de Mesquita, the Dean and Sydney Stein Professor at the Harris School of Public Policy, and Samuel Bray, a Professor of Law. Ethan is an expert in politics and political economy, Sam is the leading scholar of the law of equity.I brought them here to get a handle on this decision, and as you’ll see we approach it from several different angles – technical legal questions, institutional politics, and judicial strategy – that takes us to some interesting places. And if you want more Supreme Court content, check out my other podcast, Divided Argument, an unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast that I record regularly with Professor Dan Epps – available wherever you get your podcasts.But now, have a listen.