[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.