'Reeks of Bad Faith': DC Judge Scolds Trump DOJ's Drive to Restrict Injunctions
Trump's Justice Department is pushing to end the power of federal trial judges to issue nationwide injunctions. U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in Washington says the push "demonstrates contempt for the authority that the Constitution's Framers have vested in the judicial branch."
September 30, 2019 at 10:11 AM
6 minute read
The U.S. Justice Department is advancing "bad faith" arguments to limit the scope of injunctions issued against government agencies, a Washington federal trial judge said in blocking new Trump administration rules that would have let authorities more broadly speed up the deportation of immigrants.
District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's decision late Friday, the latest rebuke of the Trump administration's anti-immigration maneuvering, came with a broad discussion of the merits of nationwide injunctions, which the Justice Department has criticized in court, public appearances and opinion articles. Jackson's ruling in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia forcefully pushed back against the Trump administration's crusade to end nationwide injunctions.
"It reeks of bad faith, demonstrates contempt for the authority that the Constitution's Framers have vested in the judicial branch, and, ultimately, deprives successful plaintiffs of the full measure of the remedy to which they are entitled," Jackson, an Obama appointee, wrote in her ruling.
Justice Department lawyers, including U.S. Attorney General William Barr, contend federal trial judges exceed their authority when they bind parties nationwide beyond the individuals and groups appearing in a case before the court. Judges have issued more than two dozen national injunctions against the Trump administration, fueling frustration among Justice Department leaders.
The U.S. Supreme Court this term is expected to take a fresh look at nationwide injunctions when the justices examine rulings that stopped the Trump administration from ending an Obama-era immigration program benefiting immigrants who arrived as children in the U.S. "Far from solving the problem, the DACA injunction proved catastrophic," Barr said recently. "The program's recipients remain in legal limbo after nearly two years of bitter political division over immigration, including a government shutdown."
A Justice Department spokesperson said about Jackson's opinion: "Congress expressly authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to act with dispatch to remove from the country aliens who have no right to be here. The district court's decision squarely conflicts with that express grant of authority and vastly exceeds the district court's own authority."
Earlier this month, senior Justice Department lawyer Beth Williams, head of the office of legal policy, argued in public remarks that the "equitable remedies" of an injunction "must be no broader than necessary to afford complete relief to the plaintiff." Williams continued: "By definition, nationwide injunctions—which often afford relief that is broader than necessary to cure the alleged injury—exceed this time-honored limitation on the scope of equitable power."
In Friday's ruling, Jackson described as "troubling" the idea that a narrow injunction—applying only to the immediate parties in a case—would allow a federal agency to carry out presumably invalid new rules and regulations across the country.
"A world in which this court would be required to order an administrative agency to isolate the effects of a procedurally invalid rule and terminate its impacts only with respect to a particular plaintiff has lots of slippery slopes," Jackson wrote.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, represented by Main Justice, "has no good answer to the obvious practical problems that partial invalidation of agency rules—including and especially rules that pertain to food, air, and water—would pose," Jackson said.
Arguments supporting limited injunctions, Jackson said, appear "to reflect a spirit of defiance of judicial authority in the aftermath of defeat that is not easily reconciled with established constitutional norms or with standard, good faith practices that seek to ensure that a successful plaintiff is made whole."
"In sum, and sternly put, the argument that an administrative agency should be permitted to side-step the required result of a fair-fought fight about well-established statutory constraints on agency action is a terrible proposal that is patently inconsistent with the dictates of the law," Jackson wrote.
Jackson's ruling against the Trump administration focused on whether and how the government ignored requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Jackson concluded the Trump administration failed to engage in "notice and comment" before announcing plans in July to implement an expedited removal scheme. Jackson issued a preliminary injunction that blocks "the expedited removal policy to anyone to whom it would apply."
Lawyers at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and the American Civil Liberties Union represent the challengers in the fast-track deportation case. Any Justice Department appeal will mark the latest chance for a panel of judges to scrutinize the scope of a nationwide injunction.
A new law review article by Mila Sohoni, a former Jenner & Block associate who clerked for Judge Judith Rogers on the D.C. Circuit, questioned critics of nationwide injunctions who contend they do not have a long history in the law.
"Injunctions that shielded nonparties formed at least a part of the output of the federal courts as far back as 1913, and that even before then—in the 1890s—the [Supreme] Court understood a lower federal court 'sitting in equity' as empowered to offer a 'comprehensive decree covering the whole ground of controversy' that would 'determine once for all' the legality of a state law for 'the entire community,'" Sohoni wrote.
The Supreme Court itself has endorsed or granted injunctions that shielded nonparties, she added. Those decisions are significant not just for their substance and age but because "they were the work product of Supreme Court justices who had been practicing lawyers in an era when equity was a living, flourishing thing," according to Sohoni.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Parting Shot': SEC Issues Wells Notice to Immutable Ahead of US Election
3 minute readDapper Labs $4M Settlement, $1.3M in Attorney Fees Reveal NFT Settlement Trend
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250