Federal Judges are not supposed to be ordering universal injunctions

"Senator, a universal injunction is what we call a court order that restricts the government in a way that goes beyond the parties in the case, but applies nationwide or, in some cases, universally to prevent the government from acting.

Is it sometimes referred to as a nationwide injunction?
Yes, Senator.

What is the legal basis for a federal judge to issue an order affecting people who are not part of the case before the court?
I am not aware of a legal basis, Senator.

There is no legal basis, is there?
No, Senator.

What is the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States that interprets the Constitution in a way that allows a federal district court judge to do this? Can you tell me which case it is?
I don’t know of any, Senator.

There isn’t one, is there?
I don’t know of any, Senator.

Explain to me how this works. How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everyone else besides the parties before him or her? How is that possible?
It shouldn’t be possible, Senator, but district courts do it all the time. I believe it is under the theory that courts need to prevent a federal policy from taking effect, and they often restrict it nationwide so that all non-participants are protected by that order.

I thought that if you wanted to affect parties that are not before the court, you had to file a class-action lawsuit.
That is correct, Senator.

So why don’t federal judges, instead of issuing a universal injunction with no legal basis, tell the plaintiff that they must file a class-action lawsuit if they want to affect parties that are not subject to their court?
Senator, the Department of Justice makes that argument all the time in our briefs. I think in many cases, class actions would be inappropriate. Plaintiffs wouldn’t be able to meet Rule 23 requirements to establish a class.

They wouldn’t be able to?
Correct.

So they prefer to seek a universal injunction.
Yes.

Does this encourage forum shopping?
Yes, Senator. Not only does it encourage forum shopping, but also district shopping and the filing of multiple strategic lawsuits to find a judge who will block a single policy nationwide. If you have five lawsuits, only one of those five needs to succeed.

Alright, we have established that there is no basis in legislation or in Supreme Court precedent for a universal injunction. What about common law? This order is essentially an equitable remedy. Did it exist in common law courts in England, upon which our legal system is based?
I don’t think so, Senator. The government has cited Supreme Court cases saying that courts are actually limited by the scope of relief that an equity court in England would have granted before the founding of the United States, and courts of that era granted relief only to the parties in the case, not much beyond that.

The universal injunction as a remedy is unknown in English common law, isn’t it?
I haven’t researched that far back, but I am not aware of it.

I have researched it. It did not exist in equity. Only about 27 universal injunctions were issued in the entire 20th century. Does that sound right?
That sounds right, Senator.

But 86 of them were issued against President Trump in his first term, correct?
I don’t know the exact number, but it was a high number.

And so far, in President Trump’s second term, 30 universal injunctions have been issued against him, right?
Senator, I don’t have the exact number, but that sounds correct.

The universal injunction has become a weapon against the Trump administration, hasn’t it?
Yes.

And tell me again, in my last 10 seconds, what is the basis for the universal injunction in Article III of the Constitution? I read Article III, which defines the judiciary. Where is the universal injunction mentioned?
It is not mentioned, Senator.

It says that courts are to decide the case or controversy before them, based on the parties in the case. So, Congress could act and say: "Look, federal judges, you issue a decision for a plaintiff or a defendant, but you cannot affect people outside your court except through a class-action lawsuit."

That’s what class actions were created for, isn’t it?
Yes, Senator."