[thoughtstheseus]

If you win in lower court you can still bring the case to the Supreme Court to create national uniformity. One of the consolidated cases for Brown vs. Board of Education won in Delaware while others lost.

That is the appropriate way to determine national uniformity in law.

[nobody9999]

IANAL, but IIUC (and I many be wrong) if there is no controversy (e.g., competing precedents in multiple jurisdictions) there's nothing to litigate.

Moreover, assuming that the "winner" of a case has gotten "relief," they no longer have standing to sue.

That said, the issue at hand doesn't include a decision on the merits of a case, but rather what the scope of a Preliminary Injunction (PI)[0] might be.

In the example I used, if a court implements a PI it's to limit the potential harm to those impacted by the harm claimed by the plaintiffs.

The SCOTUS ruling limits the scope of such a PI to just those who are either directly named as parties to the case and/or those within the jurisdiction of the district court.

In that circumstance, there is no set of cases to be consolidated since no trial has been held.

Given a government acting in bad faith, this leaves open the option that those harmed by the action of the government can be detained and moved outside the jurisdiction of the district court. At which point, according the the SCOTUS majority, the government can cause the harm being litigated and anyone caught up in this would need to bring a new case in the new federal district jurisdiction, even though Federal law applies everywhere in the US.

Please note that at the point a PI is granted, no one has "won" anything -- only that the judge has ruled that there is harm (and as such, standing to bring the case) and that those bringing the case are likely to succeed on the merits.

Again, since a PI isn't precedent, and the litigants claiming harm have already gotten relief -- at least until the trial is complete, they have no standing to push anyone to extend the PI to additional litigants in other Federal district jurisdictions, even though the legal question is relevant across all those jurisdictions, as it's Federal action.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Preliminary_injunct...

[thoughtstheseus]

If litigants receive relief through a PI, it addresses their specific harm. Extending it nationwide may be unwanted if other jurisdictions have different views on the policy. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures relief is tailored to the parties or district, preventing a single district judge from dictating national policy.

While federal law applies uniformly, reasonable people and courts can disagree on controversial issues. Localized PIs allow diverse judicial input and foster a broader dialogue before a final ruling.

Court shopping for nationwide injunctions, common in cases like Obama’s DACA or Trump’s policies, lets one judge halt national policy…

Affirming a democratically elected executive’s mandate, Obama with DACA or Trump with immigration reforms is reasonable and respects the separation of powers.

IMO Congress needs to act more effectively, passing clear laws on issues like immigration to reduce reliance on executive orders and judicial battles.

[underlipton]

>If litigants receive relief through a PI, it addresses their specific harm. Extending it nationwide may be unwanted if other jurisdictions have different views on the policy.

That doesn't matter if it's a federal issue (which it would have to be if it's in federal court). A single district judge dictating national policy temporarily, while a higher court makes its determination, is exactly what they're there for.

Either the activity is legal (nationwide) by federal law, or it's illegal (nationwide) by federal law. Limiting to the plaintiffs violates equal protection.