be argued today stayed in about a state of texas to play mexican girl and others versus  plaintive and her counsel in contempt if violated that basic rule and claim the coercive power over millions of americans that the courts have consistently and rightly rejected this contempt order should with this out of the council had no connection whatsoever to the original was who this case i know with that she shot my has a very a connection to the injunction to th nonparty and then the person who has an injunction says this is somehow interfering or not consistent with what i want my injunction to be that's always the fact and the courts consistently say lester's active concert active participation between and in her private capacity as she attempts to push the regulation i mean i'm resetting this hour out and in the sense that i think it's i think it's pretty close well here's why i think it falls our side of the ledge whatever the status is injunctions bind people the act in question made me made mean that the legal claim in the new jersey court maybe that should be dismissed that would be a question for the new jersey courts of the side that's a question of law but bringing the action itself does not make is our rosa or counsel law breakers and that's what makes this case so out of step so foreclosed by this court's rule sixty five precedent and supreme court sixty five precedent you know i point the court you know to to the generative case legal knitwear a supreme court case and there are the question was could a successor or a sign may be bound but only where there is proof that the successor is a instrumentality of the original down party to evade the injunction and of course that's again a case in which the subject matter of the injunction is going to be at issue in the predecessor case and in the successor case that happens in all of these cases otherwise the case won't come up in the first place but what the supreme court said was it wasn't enough for the subject matter to be at issue what matters is if it's the same party or an agent or someone working together with them and guess several questions warrant you aren't disputing that unnamed parties can be bound as a general principle in some instances i named parties can be brought in this court in particular just has a very robust and important history of unnamed parties being bound by injunctions to prevent collusion and sidestepping of injunctions i wouldn't go that far wrong well our court i mean i'm sure you're familiar with our courts long history back to all the injunctions in place after brown versus board of education so it's clear that parties governors of states can be held in contempt even if they are originally named so how do we draw the line is it is as my concern acting in concert with if parties are aware and they do the business of defining it you go ahead and you see where i'm driving it absolutely so i want to take it step by step because i think you raise an important point i recognize i'm in the judge wisdom courthouse in talking about these questions first of all actual notice is not going to be enough because we'll sixty five says actual notice is necessary but not sufficient to find someone to an injunction it's people bound or those who have actual notice and fit the requirement of act yes so the mind is very clear and with respect to adopt a position below obliterates the line you need active participation working together not simply being aware that there's an injunction but actually working together collusion courts are very capable of determining who is a colluder and who is a who is a stranger this is abduction and again what is beyond it being the way or clearly they were aware of the national the nationwide injunction what if the department of labor said well we can't pursue it for you but you go ahead you've got a private lawsuit cause of action if there been any exchange between attorneys there been any no i would think so because again if you look at these cases look at this court's cases after say hall they talk about even where the parties know each other i point the court to justice ginsburg's opinion in the sturgill case which talks about how in tamping down on this virtual representation or adequate representation theory justice ginsburg took great pains to say process requires before someone can be punished punished as a law breaker i want to repeat the point people lose lawsuits all the time on top of the six motions on summary judgment motions they're wrong about the law that's our system it's the end of the case but to be punished as a law breaker there must be as what what just as an officer of the court what's happening in new jersey did they move further levon sanctions because it was frivolous case it's quite something your honor no they haven't they didn't even move to dismiss they they answered they supposedly answered this case their biology that are our count stated claim and by the way there are state law counts in this case there are federal claims that don't not turn on the overtime rule what they did was they answered not moved to dismiss and then came to the texas court as a complete stranger to the court as much of the stranger to it as we were and asked judgment sand to hold doesn't contempt for promoting a theory or finally to a lawsuit that injunctions zenith tabi regal knitwear traveler post all of these cases have a stringent requirement of active participation and you made these are used to judge was a yes we did wrong there's no argument which if we have made the same arguments below as we're making and there isn't a hearing not just on paper he had a hearing on this he he did have a hearing in your honor that's correct and i think the judges judgment sounds stay or i think showed some increased awareness of what the wall requires in this situation you know that the the contempt order was quite definite the stay word or acknowledge that he had no precedent to support his position an have changed the relationship between the american people and the government that's a paraphrase but a close one of his opinion and it did because there is no case on the books none that they've cited and there's a ton of cases on the other side that said just because the government from doing something a complete stranger when you say a ton of cases you may know i always like to know what's the best of the time so i am prepared for this argument i try to think what i would say is the answer to that question and it's  a little difficult as there are so many that repeat the point i know i didn't start with reagan that where because that tells you right that from around the time that will sixty five was adopted and became a federal rule i think it's quite telling that successor or in the signs someone who has a relationship a relationship with the down party isn't necessarily bound by the injunction unless there's a proof that the successor was a means of getting around the injunction in question if you start with the case went forward on what would be the ruin of the district court in new jersey with respect to the fact that the case had been that these federal courts had  joined the enforcement of this statute and i mean this regulation completely i mean something is no and if the injunction is to have any respect there is regulation upon which the case can be based now so what do you do with out only if they get past the contempt aspect of the injunction to the merits of the case and the issues now before this court began and with the fact that respondents were acutely aware of that injunction recklessly disregarded the duty to the court to obey it and disobedient we attempted to enforce the final rule anyways represented in the underlying matter you are bound by the injunction an adequate representation is no more complicated than two factors are the interests aligned and of the party in the underlying proceeding understand that it was out in a representative capacity for non parties and the district court may find use that employee satisfied both those factors specifically a record site for nine seven for the district court found that the simple stretch the way that this injunction functions i absolutely agree it's the extend that what the injunction does is define the rights of all of the workers in the united states who o subject or maybe been subject to the fine however the real concern is is the just record going to reach out and hold those millions of individuals in contempt and the answer is no because only one individual in two years in the entire country read that injunction to permit them to go to new jersey and file a lawsuit but what's the limiting principle for the future let's say many all over the country they're all linking to what's the limiting principle to  very expansive notion of private limiting principle is simply the due process concerns that the chase case addresses and that's it to ninety one us or for my question is let's say individuals independently all over the f l as a gives you a suit but they cannot file a suit to enforce a final rule that his and held to be not enforceable and to be held in joint from implementation in the nation for years there is no limiting principle rows is enjoying food even fighting over the validity of the final there to be no actions taken to enforce or implement the final rule so when we lose or draw on the the well and even if the squire decides that pretty is not the manner in which she was found by the injunction you still should affirm because under the whole case what miss oliver as was doing threaten the very core of what the injunction was intended to do and if you look at the whole case it makes clear that a court may hold in contempt charges that threaten the court's ability to render a binding judgment in other words as this court recognized particularly in light of the civil rights precedent coming out of this court and injunction  enforcement in texas what is your best days where you have someone you describe as a potential destructor but the disruption is that they're going to file a motion what's your best case no legal  if you if you take our reza sort of reframing here you could say that's an injunction that binds the world because any body in the world who walks in and says he based on the authority of that agency i want one of these ten vehicles that person will get enjoying and another person comes in to take it they put themselves inside the judgment but i don't see here though is how is this judgment applied to deal well threatening how is that threatened at all by the n f l s a private  always work more aware of this but my understanding is there's at least one of that was instituted another before and there's other ones where they said the man letters and a company's money paid off money or something or to not have a suit instituted because they don't want to go through the risk of exposure so i don't you know we say in our brief you've got to take a bit or with this week you can have it take you to whatever metaphor you want to use you can wrap yourself in the authority and basically try to act as a as a private attorney general and forcing the rule and then pretend like she has no relationship whatsoever with a part of labor so i don't think that's a very tough question it's a novel question but it's not a tough question what seems to be novel though in the scholarship more is the nationwide injunction it is the district work reaching out to say all americans you're on the being a contender but there at that seems more novelty to the bed and then the hypothesis that the district or somewhere else will simply disregard what does seem to be a very clear invalidation of rule and if they do that i mean you district court judge somewhere creatively mean for the rule is the question ultimate park where that would get closer to eating into many of the department of labor who have the i didn't think that we could point in this record to ruling around the country i thought we had one case in new jersey  think just fine this is enough your honor but because they're you know like i said if you're looking for collusion with for to suppression act in concert that they are essentially rolling in and saying by here by by the authority vested like by two police officers to say you can't you can't demand money based on the  think is kind of central as we've seen judge i'll ask a question about every whether or not judge was on its order kept the rule from going into effect and so that's that's all the different and to be fair they they point that out on one page i did indicate the injunction in terms of what it did with the rule we question is here who does the injunction apply to and i've heard both counsel for the other side concede it applies to everyone in the nation and there is another reference t future it could be anyone who acts inconsistent with the government's case but the second point i wanted to make was i think things of my friends on the other side turned things around a little bit there was a reference that we should want junctions which is a top of