{"id":332,"date":"2018-01-23T08:45:18","date_gmt":"2018-01-23T14:45:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/?p=332"},"modified":"2019-07-03T23:43:55","modified_gmt":"2019-07-04T04:43:55","slug":"nationwide-injunctions-city-of-chicago-v-sessions-and-class-wide-relief-in-non-class-action-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=332","title":{"rendered":"Nationwide Injunctions: City of Chicago v. Sessions<\/i> and Class-wide Relief in Non-class Action Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Matthew Erickson<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Jeff
Jeff Sessions, Attorney General. Photo by Gage Skidmore<\/a>, CC BY-SA 2.0<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

On September 17, 2017, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a preliminary injunction against the imposition of conditions the Trump administration placed on receipt of federal funds under a program known as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (the \u201cByrne JAG grant\u201d). The case,\u00a0City of Chicago v. Sessions<\/em><\/a>, was the second major challenge to the Trump administration\u2019s efforts to restrict funding from so-called \u201csanctuary cities\u201d after the Northern District of California\u00a0blocked a similar effort<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Immigration was an important issue in Trump\u2019s presidential campaign, and after his election the Department of Justice took the official position<\/a> that sanctuary cities \u201cmake all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes.\u201d The City of Chicago argued that its \u201cWelcoming Ordinance,\u201d which forbids Chicago employees from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement unless certain conditions are met, is essential to fostering cooperation between immigrant communities and law enforcement<\/a>. Much like Trump\u2019s ban on immigration from Muslim-majority countries, the sanctuary cities policy has been mired in legal controversy.<\/p>\n

In finding for the City of Chicago, the district court enjoined the Department of Justice from enforcing the policy anywhere in the nation<\/a> rather than just enjoining the Department via the named plaintiffs. This remedy, referred to as a \u201cnationwide injunction,\u201d has come under scrutiny in recent years, with Attorney General Sessions referring to judges who issue nationwide injunctions as \u201csuper-legislators<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Recent scholarship<\/a> has pointed out the harms of nationwide injunctions issued outside of class-action lawsuits, including forum shopping, the possibility of conflicting injunctions, and the fact that nationwide injunctions effectively prevent other circuits from weighing in on the issue, potentially forcing the Supreme Court to grant certiorari sooner than it would otherwise. Others argue, however, that there are also advantages to nationwide injunctions<\/a>. They may preserve judicial resources and increase uniformity by deciding a case for the whole nation at once, and may afford more complete relief to the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

What makes the recent decision impressive is that, unlike many decisions preceding it, the district court offered an analysis of the costs and benefits of issuing a nationwide injunction<\/a>, and acknowledged the possible harms accompanying such a remedy. The district court emphasized that nationwide injunctions are \u201can extraordinary remedy that should be limited by the nature of the constitutional violation<\/a>\u201d (though it should be noted that, unlike the court in California<\/a>, this court did not find a constitutional violation, instead finding for the City of Chicago on statutory interpretation grounds). However, the court ultimately issued a nationwide injunction for three reasons. First, the judge found no evidence of forum shopping. Second, judicial economy counseled against requiring multiple suits to decide the issue. The third reason, which received the most lengthy treatment, was that the \u201crule of law\u201d would be ill served by allowing an illegal policy to be enforced.<\/p>\n

I will be exploring the issues surrounding the use of nationwide injunctions in an upcoming student Note, where I will argue that the path forward is not to move away from equitable balancing, but rather to evaluate the factors counseling for and against a nationwide injunction more carefully than most courts have done thus far. Regardless of whether this court arrived at the right answer in issuing a nationwide injunction, the mere fact that it gave attention to the problems nationwide injunctions pose and attempted to weigh factors counseling for and against an injunction is laudable. Hopefully, future courts will follow suit, continuing this important conversation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Matthew Erickson On September 17, 2017, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a preliminary injunction against the imposition of conditions the Trump administration placed on receipt of federal funds under a program known as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (the \u201cByrne JAG grant\u201d). The case,\u00a0City of Chicago v. Sessions, was the second major challenge to the Trump administration\u2019s efforts to restrict funding from so-called \u201csanctuary cities\u201d after the Northern District…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"link","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"BLOG: Nationwide Injunctions: *City of Chicago v. Sessions* and Class-wide Relief in Non-class Action Cases by Matthew Erickson, previewing his upcoming Note.","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-link","hentry","category-board-member-contribution","post_format-post-format-link"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9jSvD-5m","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":508,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=508","url_meta":{"origin":332,"position":0},"title":"Chicago Public Schools Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Failure to Support Non-English Speaking Parents of Children with Disabilities","author":"Anna Karnaze","date":"February 9, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"On Monday, January 29, 2018, Equip for Equality\u00a0filed a federal civil rights class action lawsuit against Chicago Public Schools (CPS) and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), alleging their failure to adequately support limited English proficiency (LEP) parents of CPS students with disabilities as required by law. According to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/Equip-for-Equality-300x300.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1317,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1317","url_meta":{"origin":332,"position":1},"title":"Stay-at-Home, Videoconferencing, and a Baptism of Fire for the California Consumer Privacy Act","author":"Michael P. Goodyear","date":"April 21, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"The novel coronavirus COVID-19 has rapidly become one of the worst public health crises in U.S. history. Yet this is not only a critical moment for health, but also for privacy. With social isolation orders in forty-two states, as well as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, and Guam, collaborative technological services\u2014such\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "COVID-19"","block_context":{"text":"COVID-19","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=122"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2536,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=2536","url_meta":{"origin":332,"position":2},"title":"Personal Jurisdiction in Class Actions After Bristol-Myers Squibb: How Ford May Foreshadow the Supreme Court\u2019s Answer","author":"Connor Cohen","date":"July 28, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Federal circuit courts have recently split over applying Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court (BMS) to class actions. The Supreme Court\u2019s watershed personal jurisdiction opinion in 2017 held that courts can only exercise specific personal jurisdiction over plaintiffs\u2019 claims that arise out of or relate to defendants\u2019 conduct in the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1495,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1495","url_meta":{"origin":332,"position":3},"title":"Do Prisoners Have a Right to Soap?","author":"Chad Flanders","date":"June 24, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"In the ongoing litigation regarding prison conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic, one request of the litigants stands out: they want more soap. And sometimes\u2014especially at the district court level\u2014prisoners have been able to get that soap. In a Texas case, Valentine v. Collier, the district court ordered the prison to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Constitutional Issues"","block_context":{"text":"Constitutional Issues","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=134"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":574,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=574","url_meta":{"origin":332,"position":4},"title":"Jennings v. Rodriguez: Supreme Court to Decide Immigrants\u2019 Right to Due Process in Detention","author":"Grace Kim","date":"February 23, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"In 2003, Errol Barrington Scarlett, a long-time permanent resident from Jamaica who had been living in the United States for over thirty years with U.S. citizen children and grandchildren, was taken into custody by the Department of Justice. Scarlett was previously convicted of drug possession in 1999, but a year\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/claire-anderson-60670-unsplash-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/claire-anderson-60670-unsplash-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/claire-anderson-60670-unsplash-1024x683.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":163,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=163","url_meta":{"origin":332,"position":5},"title":"Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against President Trump’s Transgender Military Ban","author":"Joshua Cowin","date":"November 18, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"On July 26, 2017, President Trump announced a directive on Twitter\u00a0that would ban transgender individuals from serving in the military. This decision reversed a policy approved under the Obama Administration that would allow transgender military personnel to openly serve. President Trump cited the \u201ctremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailydot.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/bcc\/c0\/e991b97fb17468ac-2048x1024.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailydot.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/bcc\/c0\/e991b97fb17468ac-2048x1024.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailydot.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/bcc\/c0\/e991b97fb17468ac-2048x1024.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailydot.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/bcc\/c0\/e991b97fb17468ac-2048x1024.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailydot.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/bcc\/c0\/e991b97fb17468ac-2048x1024.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dailydot.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/bcc\/c0\/e991b97fb17468ac-2048x1024.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}