District Court judges can enjoin the federal government, nationally. Just a few weeks ago, a District Court judge somewhere found that DADT was unconstitutional (that's the declaratory judgment), and then enjoined the government from enforcing the DADT anywhere and not just against the plaintiff in that case (that's injunctive relief). That injunctive relief did not withstand appellate review (but as a theoretical matter, it could have), at least not in the short-term. A stay was granted, I believe by the 9th Circuit (could be wrong).
What makes this case so odd, is the novel approach Vinson took when he asserted a de facto injunction, based entirely on the premise that there's a presumption the federal government will abide by the declaratory judgment. The problem is which declaratory judgment? The one Vinson issued, or the two others that reached entirely opposite opinions?
"How did the other states become party to the suit?"
They didn't. But, Vinson argues that his declamatory judgment in this facial challenge is a de facto injunction on the federal government prohibiting them from implementing Obamacare anywhere, not just in the states party to the litigation. Unlike another poster, I don't believe it accurate to say that Vinson's ruling then prohibits the government from defending themselves in similar lawsuits (if they either exist now, or in the future) with other states not party to this particular suit. It wouldn't.
The government is only bound by the decision (from a litigation standpoint) with these particular plaintiffs on this particular question of law. That's it.
Like I said, this is an incredibly unique case, not just because of the principles of law at question, but the fact that we have competing civil cases against the same unique defendant (fedgov), brought by multiple states and relatively simultaneously.
Huh? This seems like a prescription for chaos. As you have noted, there are competing judgments. Which one is "correct"? The last one?
What makes this case so odd, is the novel approach Vinson took when he asserted a de facto injunction, based entirely on the premise that there's a presumption the federal government will abide by the declaratory judgment.
I don't think it's completely novel, based on the citations. I followed them, and became even more confused because they looked like they might be out of context. See my posting here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2667927/posts?page=99#99
They didn't.
OK, now I have to argue opposite what I've written before, for the sake of clarity: the states are specifically named as "state plaintiffs". How did they become plaintiffs? I thought the rules on venue were supposed to prevent plaintiffs from "forum shopping" except in a limited number of circumstances.
And back to my original question: What exactly does it mean to be a "state plaintiff"? Are there different rules for them, as opposed to "individual plaintiffs"? I understand how the judge ruled that two states had standing, and there was no need to address the others. But, again: how did they circumvent the rules on venue?
But, Vinson argues that his declamatory judgment in this facial challenge is a de facto injunction on the federal government prohibiting them from implementing Obamacare anywhere, not just in the states party to the litigation.
And here's where I get lost, again. The judge grants the plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment. Which ones? All of them? It references a document that I haven't read, so maybe that's what expands it to all the states. But, I keep circling back to "how"? If competing district judges can just keep issuing contrary opinions for multiple states, which one do we believe? Why do we need a Supreme Court?
I know you are trying to help, but now I'm even more confused. I've read divergent opinions from people I respect, and I'm having difficulty reconciling them. I'm trying to do my own original research, but it's frustrated by vagueness of it all.
Like I said, this is an incredibly unique case, not just because of the principles of law at question, but the fact that we have competing civil cases against the same unique defendant (fedgov), brought by multiple states and relatively simultaneously.
You forgot one more factor: an administration that doesn't care about complying with the principles of law.