Prior to this year, the entire country. Today, thanks to SCOTUS shenanigans, it likely only applies to the states involved in the lawsuit, LA. But who knows, hard to keep up with the game of calvinball the SCOTUS is playing.

▲

dcrazy 4 hours ago | parent [-]

You seem to be confusing precedent-setting decisions with nationwide injunctions.

▲

rtkwe 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Probably though the old pattern was that the plaintiffs would request and the Circuit would issue a nationwide injunction with the ruling when finding that a law in full unconstitutional.

Now we have the weird situation where the constitution is more patchwork because you have to get rulings in all the Circuits or wait for one case to make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

▲

rdbl27 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No, that was never the old pattern. Nationwide injunctions were unheard of until very recently -- as in, within the past 10-20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction

▲

malfist 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Your own source says they've been common since 1960

	▲	dcrazy 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It doesn’t say that. It says that the D.C Court of Appeals issued one in 1963, and then quotes the DOJ as saying “ nationwide injunctions remained ‘exceedingly rare’ for a few decades after 1963[,]” notwithstanding one issued by a district judge in New York in 1973. Regardless of what you think about nationwide injunctions, your original assertion that “prior to this year,” a decision by a federal appellate court would apply the entire country is categorically false.