How New Restrictions on Universal Injunctions Could Change Litigation Strategies

The Court held that district courts generally cannot prohibit the government from enforcing a law or executive action against non-parties to a lawsuit. Instead, courts should focus on providing “complete relief” to the parties before them, not sweeping relief “against anyone, anywhere.”

Key Principles From the Decision

• Universal vs Complete Relief: The Court distinguished between “universal injunctions,” which bar the government from enforcing a law against anyone, and “complete relief,” which is narrowly tailored to the parties in the case. The Court emphasized that “complete relief” is not the same as “universal relief.” Relief for non-parties should be incidental, not the primary purpose of the injunction.

• Separation of Powers Concerns: The Court expressed concern that universal injunctions intrude on the executive branch’s authority by preventing the government from enforcing its policies against those not involved in the litigation.

• Remand for Tailoring Relief: The Supreme Court remanded the cases to the district courts, instructing them to determine whether their injunctions were broader than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.

Implications for Commercial and IP Litigation

Courts will have to grapple with how the Casa decision impacts litigation that does not involve the US government, especially as litigants attempt to use the holding creatively to avoid expansive injunctions in other contexts. Recently, in an appeal before the Ninth Circuit, the appellate court rejected Google’s arguments that a nationwide injunction against Google was overbroad. In the antitrust dispute with Epic Games, Google argued that “Epic is a single plaintiff…[b]ut the injunction does not just impact Epic; it seeks to regulate Google’s interactions with over half a million developers, OEMs, mobile carriers, and Android app stores—none of whom are parties.” The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on July 31 and explained that the Casa decision does not render the injunction against Google overbroad because “the scope of a permanent injunction following a finding of antitrust liability” is not comparable to that of a preliminary injunction against the US government “on a constitutional question.” The Ninth Circuit further explained that the Casa decision clarifies that traditional, parties-only injunctions can apply nationwide and restrict parties’ conduct towards individuals and entities that are not involved in the lawsuit.

Practical Guidance for Litigators

• Federal Government Cases: The Casa decision primarily restricts district courts from issuing universal injunctions against the federal government, especially preliminary injunctions that restrict the government’s conduct towards non-parties. Courts must ensure that injunctive relief is no broader than necessary to provide complete relief to the parties.

• Private Party Disputes: In cases between private parties, such as intellectual property disputes, litigants should still avoid unnecessarily broad injunctions. However, if broad relief is required to fully remedy a party’s harm, incidental benefits to non-parties do not automatically render the injunction improper. With that said, as a direct result of Casa, we expect to see novel and creative arguments attacking the scope of injunctions.

• Review of Existing Injunctions: Courts may revisit the scope of existing injunctions to ensure they are not broader than necessary, especially in light of Casa. Parties should be prepared to argue whether the scope of relief was appropriately tailored.