Over at Divided Argument, Sam Bray has posted this abstract of an essay he has just released. I have wondered about some of these questions, and Sam has been influential with the Court, as in the universal injunction case:

When a federal officer challenges her removal by the president, what forms of interim relief and what final remedies are available? This Article considers those questions. It shows that the appropriate remedy for a prevailing officer will typically be a declaratory one, either a declaratory judgment or quo warranto. The interim relief question is harder. The suggestion here is that if an officer sues immediately to challenge her removal, and remains the de facto officer, there should be a presumption that the district court should ensure that she remains in possession of the office during the pendency of the litigation. But if the officer fails to sue immediately, and is no longer the de facto officer, the presumption should be against any interim relief. This suggestion is subject to some qualifications, but it would prevent “flipping” back and forth during the litigation with respect to who occupies the office and exercises its powers. These presumptions are supported by historical practice with respect to preliminary injunctions and quo warranto, by equitable considerations such as laches, and by normative concerns that are especially strong in the officer-removal context.