Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 48

2 

TRUMP v. HAWAII 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

that  the  plaintiffs  sought  and  obtained  in  this  case.    The 
District  Court  imposed  an  injunction  that  barred  the
Government  from  enforcing  the  President’s  Proclamation 
against  anyone,  not  just  the  plaintiffs.    Injunctions  that
prohibit  the  Executive  Branch  from  applying  a  law  or
policy  against  anyone—often  called  “universal”  or  “na-
tionwide”  injunctions—have  become  increasingly  com-
mon.1  District courts, including the one here, have begun
imposing  universal  injunctions  without  considering  their
authority to grant such sweeping relief.  These injunctions
are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system—
preventing  legal  questions  from  percolating  through  the
federal  courts,  encouraging  forum  shopping,  and  making 
every case a national emergency for the courts and for the
Executive Branch. 

I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to
enter  universal  injunctions.  These  injunctions  did  not
emerge until a century and a half after the founding.  And 
they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on
equitable  relief  and  the  power  of  Article  III  courts.    If 
their  popularity  continues,  this  Court  must  address  their
legality. 

I 
If  district  courts  have  any  authority  to  issue  universal
injunctions,  that  authority  must  come  from  a  statute  or
the  Constitution.  See  Missouri  v.  Jenkins,  515  U. S.  70 

—————— 

1 “Nationwide injunctions” is perhaps the more common term.  But  I 
use the term “universal injunctions” in this opinion because it is more
precise.  These  injunctions  are  distinctive  because  they  prohibit  the
Government  from  enforcing  a  policy  with  respect  to  anyone,  including
nonparties—not  because  they  have  wide  geographic  breadth.    An 
injunction that was properly limited to the plaintiffs in the case would 
not  be  invalid  simply  because  it  governed  the  defendant’s  conduct 
nationwide.