Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 55.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

9 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

determination  of  the  prevailing  minimum  wage  for  a 
particular  industry.  Id.,  at  520.    The  D. C.  Circuit  con-
cluded that the Secretary’s determination was unsupported,
but  remanded  for  the  District  Court  to  assess  whether 
any  of  the  plaintiffs  had  standing  to  challenge  it.  Id.,  at 
521–535.  The D. C. Circuit also addressed the question of
remedy,  explaining  that  if  a  plaintiff  had  standing  to  sue
then  “the  District  Court  should  enjoin  . . .  the  Secretary’s
determination with respect to the entire industry.”  Id., at 
535  (emphasis  added).  To  justify  this  broad  relief,  the
D. C.  Circuit  explained  that  executive  officers  should
honor  judicial  decisions  “in  all  cases  of  essentially  the 
same  character.”  Id.,  at  534.  And  it  noted  that,  once  a 
court  has  decided  an  issue,  it  “would  ordinarily  give  the
same  relief  to  any  individual  who  comes  to  it  with  an 
essentially  similar  cause  of  action.”    Ibid.    The  D. C.  Cir-
cuit  added  that  the  case  was  “clearly  a  proceeding  in 
which  those  who  have  standing  are  here  to  vindicate  the 
public  interest  in  having  congressional  enactments  prop-
erly interpreted and applied.”  Id., at 534–535. 

Universal  injunctions  remained  rare  in  the  decades
following  Wirtz.  See  Bray  440–445.    But  recently,  they 
have  exploded  in  popularity.  See  id.,  at  457–459.    Some 
scholars  have  criticized  the  trend.    See  generally  id.,  at 
457–465;  Morley,  Nationwide  Injunctions,  Rule  23(b)(2),
and  the  Remedial  Powers  of  the  Lower  Courts,  97  B. U. 
L. Rev.  615,  633–653  (2017);  Morley,  De Facto  Class  Ac-
tions?  Plaintiff-  and  Defendant-Oriented  Injunctions  in 
Voting  Rights,  Election  Law,  and  Other  Constitutional 
Cases, 39 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 487, 521–538 (2016). 

No persuasive defense has yet been offered for the prac-
tice.  Defenders  of  these  injunctions  contend  that  they
ensure  that  individuals  who  did  not  challenge  a  law  are
treated the same as plaintiffs who did, and that universal 
injunctions give the judiciary a powerful tool to check the 
Executive  Branch.    See  Amdur  &  Hausman,  Nationwide