Short Quiz – The U.S. Supreme Court vs. Lower-Court National Injunctions

[johnkarls]

.

1. Are there more than 670 U.S. District Court judges?

2. In recent years, have activist lower-court judges issued nation-wide injunctions on matters of national importance?

3. Is this practice especially egregious when combined with the notorious practice of “judge shopping” (filing a lawsuit in front of a notoriously-sympathetic judge)?

4. Does this mean, as a practical matter, that anyone can file a lawsuit in front of a sympathetic judge and obtain a national injunction that, FOR YEARS UNTIL THE MATTER REACHES THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, suspends federal law enacted by Congress, Executive Orders promulgated by the President, regulations issued by federal agencies, etc., etc.???

5. Indeed, did the National Law Journal report on 7/14/2020 that during 2017-2018 there were 25 nationwide injunctions and that “a few [Supreme Court] justices are on the warpath against nationwide injunctions” -- though obviously not a majority for banning them outright?

6. Instead, has the Supreme Court begun issuing peremptory rulings in many such cases – invalidating the nationwide injunction while permitting the cases to wend their leisurely way through the lower courts without the disruption caused by the activist judges?

7. Has Law Prof. Mila Sohoni documented that national injunctions have been issued for more than a century by lower courts against federal statutes, state laws and federal agencies -- starting in 1913 with the Supreme Court itself issuing a national injunction against enforcement of a federal statute until its constitutionality could be decided by the Supreme Court?

8. Nevertheless, because of the recent avalanche of national injunctions by lower courts, does the current situation smack of legal-history buffs discovering a rarely-used device that could be employed to weaponize the judicial system to create havoc?

9. Does Law Prof. Samuel Bray point out that national injunctions were rare until the 1960’s when they became more prevalent because of ideological shifts in national-government policies?

10. Does Prof. Bray point out many undesirable results such as those mentioned in Questions 3 & 4? Does he also mention the possibility of INCONSISTENT/CONFLICTING lower-court national injunctions?

11. Indeed, does our Original Topic Proposal include an example in 2023 in which a U.S. District Court Judge in Texas issued a de facto national injunction against use of the nation’s most popular abortion pill by suspending the FDA’s approval of the drug -- while a U.S. District Court Judge in the state of Washington ruled in favor of 17 state Attorneys General that the FDA cannot restrict the use of that pill in the 17 states represented in the lawsuit or in the District of Columbia???

12. Does Prof. Bray devote 13 pages of his 64-page law-review to (quoting the title of his article section) -- “Where Should We Go From Here”?

13. Does Law Prof. Alan Morrison in a 2/6/2023 Bloomberg News OpEd propose “It’s Time To Enact a 3-Judge Court Law for National Injunctions”?

14. After opining that some national injunctions are warranted though often, they are not, does Prof. Morrison propose that enactment of a federal law that “no injunction against a federal agency or officer may benefit any person beyond the named plaintiffs unless it is by a three-judge district court, which includes at least one circuit judge”?

15. What procedures does the U.S. Supreme Court already employ in policing national injunctions issued by lower courts?

16. Would Prof. Morrison’s proposal replace the procedures the Supreme Court already employs? Or would they operate simultaneously?

17. Can a federal law such as Prof. Morrison proposes constitutionally replace the procedures the Supreme Court already employs?

18. Do the procedures the Supreme Court CURRENTLY employs address the imbroglio well?

19. Since each Supreme Court Justice has supervisory responsible over a personal list of lower courts and can make peremptory rulings to suspend national injunctions either on the Justice’s own or, in the Justice’s sole discretion, after consulting other Supreme Court Justices, do the policing decisions over the last decade seem desirable?

21. Do any of Prof. Bray’s ideas seem preferable to Prof. Morrison’s 3-Judge Panel idea (please see the 13 pages of Prof. Bray’s 64-page law-review to (quoting the title of his article section) -- “Where Should We Go From Here” at viewtopic.php?f=748&t=2361&sid=8991eac9 ... bdde21a52f)?

22. What’s to prevent a future Supreme Court from adopting less-desirable rules (putting aside the issue of whether current rules are ideal)?

23. And in line with Q-17, can anyone police the Supreme Court’s policing rules?