National injunction developments

A few developments on the national injunction should be noted.

First, on Nov. 30, a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the national injunction. The other witnesses were Amanda Frost, Michael Morley and Hans von Spakovsky. The written testimony of each witness and a video recording of the hearing are available here. The statement by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the full committee, is available here.

Second, as of today, my article on the national injunction is in print: “Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction.” I’m grateful to the many readers whose criticism made the piece stronger.

If you want to read more about the national injunction, I recommend several good treatments: this article and this article by Michael Morley, this forthcoming article by Zayn Siddique, and this recently published note by Getzel Berger. The intersection of the national injunction with other practices of the federal courts is considered in this piece by Andrew Bradt and Zachary Clopton (on Multi-District Litigation), and this piece by Kate Huddleston (on venue).

In addition, I’ve written about national injunctions repeatedly in this space, most recently a post on the argument that they are supported by the Administrative Procedure Act and a post on a defense of national injunctions by a district court judge.