Case 1:23-cv-03026-TOR ECF No. 91 filed 04/13/23 PageID.2249 Page 3 of 6
This Court declined to issue a nationwide injunction and only entered a preliminary injunction as it applies to Plaintiff States and the District of Columbia. As the Ninth Circuit recently held:
Although “there is no bar against … nationwide relief in federal district court or circuit court,” such broad relief must be “necessary to give prevailing parties the relief to which they are entitled.” Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163, 1170–71 (9th Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original removed in part); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979) (“[I]njunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs” before the court). This rule applies with special force where there is no class certification. See Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486, 1501 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]njunctive relief generally should be limited to apply only to named plaintiffs where there is no class certification”).
California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 582–83 (9th Cir. 2018) (footnote omitted).
While courts have the authority to issue nationwide preliminary injunctions, the Ninth Circuit cautions they are for “exceptional cases” that have proof of “an articulated connection to a plaintiff’s particular harm.” E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, 934 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019). “District judges must require a showing of nationwide impact or sufficient similarity to the plaintiff states to foreclose litigation in other districts.” Azar, 911 F.3d at 584; see also City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225, 1244 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting record must be developed on nationwide impact).
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION ~ 3
