An injunction must be "narrowly tailored to remedy the specific harm shown." Id. at 1244 (quoting Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163, 1170 (9th Cir. 1987)). We have upheld nationwide injunctions where such breadth was necessary to remedy a plaintiff's harm. See, e.g., id.; California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 582 (9th Cir. 2018) ("Although there is no bar against nationwide relief in federal district court . . . such broad relief must be necessary to give prevailing parties the relief to which they are entitled." (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (quoting Bresgal, 843 F.2d at 1170-71)). These are, however, "exceptional cases." Trump, 897 F.3d at 1244. To permit such broad injunctions as a general rule, without an articulated connection to a plaintiff's particular harm, would unnecessarily "stymie novel legal challenges and robust debate" arising in different judicial districts. Id.; see also Azar, 911 F.3d at 583 ("The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that nationwide injunctions have detrimental consequences to the development of law and deprive appellate courts of a wider range of perspectives.").

Here, the district court failed to discuss whether a nationwide injunction is necessary to remedy  Plaintiffs' alleged harm. Instead, in conclusory fashion, the district court stated that nationwide relief is warranted simply because district courts have the authority to impose such relief in some cases and because such relief has been applied in the immigration context. The district court clearly erred by failing to consider whether nationwide relief is necessary to remedy Plaintiffs' alleged harms. And, based on the limited record before us, we do not believe a nationwide injunction is justified.

Our dissenting colleague believes that a nationwide injunction is appropriate simply because this case presents a rule that applies nationwide. That view, however, ignores our well-established  rule that injunctive relief "must be tailored to remedy the specific harm alleged." Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). Indeed, were we to adopt the dissent's view, a nationwide injunction would result any time an enjoined action has potential nationwide effects. Such an approach would turn broad injunctions into the rule rather than the exception. Under our case law, however, all injunctions--even ones involving national policies--must be "narrowly tailored to remedy the specific harm shown." Trump, 897 F.3d at  1244 (quoting Bresgal, 843 F.2d at 1170).