Author granted license

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Document Type


Publication Date





University of Colorado




Some define “nationwide injunctions” as injunctions with: (1) no geographic limitations and (2) benefits to people beyond named plaintiffs or plaintiff classes. In this Article, I pose several questions central to figuring out what these so-called “nationwide injunctions” are. I argue that continuing to debate about injunctions in isolation from any developed, conceptual framework leads to potentially misguided arguments. The balance of criticisms regarding the targeted injunctions involve issues that are structural, jurisprudential, prudential, and formalist in ways that would curtail “nationwide injunctions” to protect Article II actors, to the relative detriment of those injured by Article II actors. There has been comparatively little focus on the potential costs of curtailing “nationwide injunctions” for those injured by Article II actors—marginalized communities in particular. There could be significant consequences of cutting off, or severely limiting access to, meaningful relief. I highlight what may be at stake if proceduralists and remedies scholars continue to make recommendations about “nationwide injunctions” without even knowing the costs to marginalized communities, let alone including those concerns as part of this discussion and our analyses.

Find on SSRN Link to Publisher Site



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.