WEBVTT

00:24:40.000 --> 00:25:49.000
Will: Well, it reminds me a little bit of Justice Alito's vote to deny the nationwide stay in the [unintelligible case. There's some kind of argument that I don't fully understand that's like I'm not saying what they did was right, what they did was wrong. But once we are being asked to stay it, some new set of-- you rerun some set of considerations. So, something like that is going on. I don't totally understand what that principle is and how it works. We do have this recurring dynamic of Texas judge grants nationwide relief against the Biden administration. Fifth Circuit lets that stand or lets part of it stand or lets a lot of it stand then go to the Supreme Court. So, it seems clear we need some-- seems that's a recurring pattern and I don't totally understand what legal standard the court applies to that pattern. I wish they would tell us.

00:25:49.000 --> 00:37:08.000
Will: I think if I had joined Justice Gorsuch's opinion in US v. Texas, would have the posture that in almost every case where the [unintelligible Texas grants a nationwide injunction, I will vote to stay it because I don't think they should be doing that. And it's hard to imagine how a nationwide injunction that exceeds the jurisdiction of the district court could still be justified by balancing the equities. Now, Justice Barrett joined Justice Gorsuch's opinion, and I would not be surprised if that's her view. I just wish I understood why it's not Justice Gorsuch's view.

00:37:08.000 --> 00:37:38.000
Will: Right. In other words, to what degree does a pending interlocutory appeal divest the district court of jurisdiction over some part of the case or the part of the case that's [unintelligible appeal.