Court Opinion

ID: 9751472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:29:49.334624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:48.109626
License: Public Domain

Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s invocation of res judicata and collateral estoppel in the present case. Both doctrines depend, to some extent, on identity of a party or parties to the prior litigation, whereas such identity appears to be lacking here. My thoughts are more closely in line of those of the majority in terms of its discussion of federalism and comity, albeit I would add that the appropriate application of these principles to a given federal mandate may depend on the subject matter and particular circumstances involved. Here, however, I find the federal court’s rationale supporting its injunction to be fairly strong, and, in any event, I believe that impacted parties should be afforded judicial review in the federal courts, to the degree they might present a colorable challenge to an injunction imposed by the federal system. *74Should such access be denied, I would certainly be willing to reconsider the approach to which I accede here.