The Supreme Court has the authority to end district courts' nationwide injunctions already, no court cases needed. That they haven't tells me they like them.
"There is something the justices can do to rein in nationwide injunctions: exercise their authority under the
Rules Enabling Act of 1934 to amend the federal rule on injunctions."
"Nationwide injunctions are issued under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which was promulgated under the REA.
Rule 65 authorizes district courts to issue preliminary injunctions but is silent as to whether they have nationwide effect or apply only to parties before the court. This ambiguity can be eliminated by an amendment to Rule 65, without the need for new legislation.
The REA empowers the Supreme Court to “prescribe general rules of practice and procedure” such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court can prescribe them on its own under Section 2072. Any rule prescribed must be submitted to Congress by May 1 and “shall take effect no earlier than December 1” of the same year, “unless otherwise provided by law.” If Congress does nothing, the rule stands."
"The question is whether the Supreme Court is willing to forgo the process under Section 2073 of the REA, which dates to 1988. Critics will note that Section 2073, which involves input from advisory committees, the Judicial Conference and the public, has been routinely employed and become the usual way of developing rules.
But the Section 2073 process often takes years, and federal courts are in crisis. Nationwide injunctions are frustrating the presidency, eroding the separation of powers, and threatening judicial legitimacy. The justices’ authority as well as the president’s is under assault by rogue judges claiming national power using nationwide injunctions. Such national power must be reserved to the only court with constitutional authority to bind the entire nation: the Supreme Court.
An amendment to Rule 65 couldn’t take effect until Dec. 1. But once proposed—by May 1, as required—it would likely have an immediate, beneficial chilling effect on rogue judges. For the sake of the Constitution, the court should act quickly."
