Brief of Civil Procedure Professors Suzette Malveaux, Alan Trammell, Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett, and Doug Rendleman as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents: Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington & Trump v. New Jersey

Authors

Suzette M. Malveaux, Washington and Lee University School of LawFollow
Alan Trammell, Washington and Lee University School of LawFollow
Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett, Washington and Lee University School of LawFollow
Doug Rendleman, Washington and Lee University School of LawFollow

Document Type

Brief

Publication Date

4-29-2025

Abstract

Nationwide injunctions are constitutional. Their core feature—courts’ power to render decisions that directly benefit nonparties—is consistent with traditional equitable practices. Accordingly, the Article III “judicial power” comprehends such remedies. Nationwide injunctions also comport with Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, including constitutional standing.

Broad remedies are sometimes necessary, especially when government actors willfully disregard people’s rights, and the usual tools of aggregate litigation (such as class actions) are not practically available to vindicate those rights. Moreover, courts can readily navigate prudential concerns about nationwide injunctions, from fears of judge shopping to prematurely freezing the law. Courts remain attuned to these concerns, and Congress and the Judicial Conference have effective tools to assess and implement any necessary limitations. In appropriate cases, including this one, nationwide injunctions remain a vital tool in holding government accountable to the people.

Recommended Citation

Brief of Civil Procedure Professors Suzette Malveaux, Alan Trammell, Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett, and Doug Rendleman as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents: Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington, & Trump v. New Jersey, U.S. Nos. 24A884, 24A885 & 24A886 (filed Apr. 29, 2025).