dissenting in part:
I respectfully dissent from Part II.C of the majority opinion.1 In crafting a remedy that was no broader than necessary to address AMC’s violations of § 4.33.3, the district court did not abuse its discretion.2 On the contrary, the district court properly followed the Supreme Court’s instruction that no conflict exists, for the purposes of comity analysis, “where a person subject to regulation by two states can comply with the laws of both.” Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 799, 113 S.Ct. 2891, 125 L.Ed.2d 612 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Disregarding the absence of a “true conflict” that implicates comity concerns, see id. at 798, 113 S.Ct. 2891, the majority concludes that a nationwide injunction against AMC “would cause substantial interference” with the sovereignty of the Fifth Circuit, and that consequently the district court abused its discretion in granting such relief. I cannot agree.
I. The Appropriate Scope of Injunctive Relief
It is well-established that once a court has obtained personal jurisdiction over a defendant, that court has the power to command the defendant to perform acts outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. See New Jersey v. City of New York, 283 U.S. 473, 482, 51 S.Ct. 519, 75 L.Ed. 1176 (1931) (“The situs of the acts creating the nuisance, whether within or without the United States, is of no importance. Plaintiff seeks a decree in person-am to prevent them in the future. The Court has jurisdiction.”); accord Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280, 289, 73 S.Ct. 252, 97 L.Ed. 319 (1952) (holding that an injunction may reach activities taking place in Mexico); Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448, 451-52, 52 S.Ct. 238, 76 L.Ed. 389 (1932) (holding that a district court’s decree is binding “throughout the United States”).
We have often reiterated this principle. See, e.g., Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163, 1170 (9th Cir.1987) (“[Tjhere is no bar against ... nationwide relief in federal district or circuit court when it is appropriate.”); United States v. Oregon, 657 F.2d 1009, 1016 n. 17 (9th Cir.1981) (holding that a district court “may enjoin the commission of acts outside its district”). Just *775last year, we upheld a nationwide injunction setting aside certain Forest Service regulations that were “manifestly contrary” to the Forest Service Decisionmaking and Appeals Reform Act. Earth Island Inst. v. Ruthenbeck, 490 F.3d 687, 698-99 (9th Cir.2007).
Likewise, district courts within our circuit commonly issue nationwide injunctions where the “injunction ... is tailored to the violation of law that the Court already found — an injunction that is no broader but also no narrower than necessary to remedy the violations.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 468 F.Supp.2d 1140, 1144 (N.D.Cal.2006); see also Golden Door, Inc. v. Odisho, 437 F.Supp. 956, 968 (N.D.Cal.1977), aff'd, 646 F.2d 347 (9th Cir.1980), abrogated on other grounds by Japan Telecom, Inc. v. Japan Telecom Am. Inc., 287 F.3d 866 (9th Cir.2002) (“Plaintiffs market area, and hence the sphere of its reputation, are nationwide. Accordingly, it is entitled to nationwide protection against confusion and dilution. The scope of the injunction must therefore be nationwide.”).3
Ultimately, the appropriate scope of in-junctive relief is guided by “the rule that injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979) (revisiting equitable principles in light of class action lawsuits). Thus, “principles of equity” limit the scope of injunctions to “the extent of the violation established, not by the geographical extent of the plaintiff class.” Id. Our circuit assesses the appropriateness of the relief fashioned by referencing the test set by Califano: “The primary concern ... must be that the relief granted is not ‘more burdensome than necessary to redress the complaining parties.’ ” Bresgal, 843 F.2d at 1170 (quoting Califano, 442 U.S. at 702, 99 S.Ct. 2545).
Consistent with these principles, we have held that a district court abuses its discretion when it enjoins activities beyond what is necessary to address the actual case before the court. See Meinhold v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 34 F.3d 1469, 1480 (9th Cir.1994). Addressing the complaint of a lone U.S. Navy serviceman who was discharged for stating he was gay, the district court had issued an injunction pre*776venting the Department of Defense (“DOD”) from discharging anyone based on sexual orientation and from maintaining files on the sexual orientation of servicemen “in the absence of conduct affecting the military mission.” Id. at 1472. Applying Calif ano, we found the injunction over-broad, reasoning: “This is not a class action, and Meinhold sought only to have his discharge voided and to be reinstated.... Beyond reinstatement, and not separating Meinhold on that basis, DOD should not be constrained from applying its regulations to Meinhold and all other military personnel.” Id. at 1480. Accordingly, we vacated all aspects of the injunction addressing issues beyond Meinhold’s reinstatement. Id.
These principles are beyond any real dispute. Moreover, it is clear that, following these principles, the district court appropriately tailored its injunction so that it was “no more burdensome” to AMC “than necessary to provide complete relief’ to the DOJ. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The majority apparently does not disagree.
II. Relevant Comity Concerns
My disagreement with my colleagues arises from their view that because our circuit and the Fifth Circuit embrace distinct interpretations of § 4.33.3, the nationwide injunction implicates principles of comity. The error in their analysis is that they focus on the wrong “conflict.” The critical issue is not that the Ninth and Fifth Circuits have announced different interpretations of § 4.33.3 — the Ninth requiring comparable viewing angles and the Fifth merely an unobstructed view of the screen. Rather, the issue is whether AMC’s compliance with the nationwide injunction would require it to act in conflict with any law, obligation, or requirement in the Fifth Circuit or Texas. It would not.
The Fifth Circuit certainly has every right to interpret law governing those states within its territory inconsistently with our view of the same law. However, I do not see — and the majority does not explain — how the district court’s remedial order impairs the Fifth Circuit’s power to do so. Specifically, nothing in a nationwide injunction against AMC could possibly threaten the independence or sovereignty of the Fifth Circuit, and it is simply incorrect to assert, as the majority does, that the injunction “requires conduct by AMC in the Fifth Circuit’s geographic area that the Fifth Circuit rejected.” Under the injunction, as the district court noted in its summary judgment order, “AMC would not be faced with a choice between complying with this Court’s orders and the [Fifth Circuit’s orders.” Were the nationwide injunction to issue, the law in the Fifth Circuit would remain unchanged, and all persons in the Fifth Circuit would remain bound by its statement of the law. Nor would AMC’s remedial actions violate or undermine the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of § 4.33.3. In Lara v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 207 F.3d 783 (5th Cir.2000), the Fifth Circuit held that, at a minimum, § 4.33.3 requires theaters to provide an unobstructed view for disabled spectators. See id. at 789. Requiring AMC to provide an even better viewing angle — not just unobstructed, but also comparable — does not create a conflict, and it is clear that AMC could remodel its theaters on its own initiative without violating the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of § 4.33.3.4
*777In the international context, the Supreme Court has spoken clearly to what constitutes a cognizable comity conflict. Hartford Fire presented the question of whether comity permitted a U.S. district court to consider certain Sherman Act antitrust claims against a group of London reinsurers. 509 U.S. at 778-79, 113 S.Ct. 2891. Regarding comity, the Court framed the only “substantial question” as “whether there is in fact a true conflict between domestic and foreign law.” Id. at 798, 113 S.Ct. 2891 (internal quotation marks omitted). The London reinsurers, joined by the British Government as ami-cus curiae, argued that comity counseled against the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction, because the British Parliament had “established a comprehensive regulatory regime ... and ... the conduct alleged here was perfectly consistent with British law and policy.” Id. at 798-99, 113 S.Ct. 2891. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the “fact that conduct is lawful in the state in which it took place will not, of itself, bar application of the United States antitrust laws, even where the foreign state has a strong policy to permit or encourage such conduct.” Id. at 799, 113 S.Ct. 2891 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court explained: “No conflict exists, for these purposes, where a person subject to regulation by two states can comply with the laws of both.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Hattford Fire provides clear support for the district court’s issuance of a nationwide injunction against AMC. Since the AMC defendants cannot show that “[Fifth Circuit] law requires them to act in some fashion prohibited by the law of the [Ninth Circuit] or ... that their compliance with the laws of both [circuits] is otherwise impossible,” the district court’s remedial order does not create a conflict that implicates comity concerns. Id.; see also In re Simon, 153 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir.1998) (confirming that “general principles of international comity” are “limited to cases in which there is in fact a true conflict between domestic and foreign law” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
III. The Majority Cannot Cite a Single Case Supporting Its Position
Though courts in our circuit and elsewhere frequently issue and approve nationwide injunctions, the majority fails to identify a single, relevant case that suggests the injunction against AMC was an abuse of discretion. In fact, most of the cases the majority relies on actually support the conclusion that nationwide relief was appropriate here, while the others are strikingly inapposite.
Bulova was a Lanham Act case in which the Supreme Court concluded a federal district court had jurisdiction to enjoin trademark infringement consummated in Mexico by a U.S. resident. 344 U.S. at 281-82, 289, 73 S.Ct. 252. The Supreme Court first stated that it did not doubt “the District Court’s jurisdiction to award appropriate injunctive relief if warranted by the facts after trial,” although the infringing conduct was permitted under Mexican law. Id. at 289, 73 S.Ct. 252. The Court also noted that a Mexican court had nullified a potentially conflicting registration of the counterfeit “Bulova” trademark in Mexico. Id. Concluding that there could be “no interference with the sovereignty of another nation,” the Supreme Court held that “the District Court in exercising its *778equity powers may command persons properly before it to cease or perform acts outside its territorial jurisdiction.” Id.
In Las Palmas Food Co. v. Ramirez & Feraud Chili Co., 245 F.2d 874 (9th Cir.1957) (per curiam), aff'g and adopting by reference Ramirez & Feraud Chili Co. v. Las Palmas Food Co., 146 F.Supp. 594 (S.D.Cal.1956), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 927, 78 S.Ct. 384, 2 L.Ed.2d 357 (1958), our circuit took up a question Bulova left open.5 Like Bulova, Las Palmas was a Lanham Act suit for injunctive relief against the infringement of a plaintiffs trademark and trade name in Mexico. See Las Palmas, 146 F.Supp. at 597-98. Unlike Bulova, however, the Las Palmas defendants had a valid Mexican registration of their counterfeit copy of the trademark. Id. at 598. The defendants argued that although the district court had the power to grant injunctive relief in Mexico, comity demanded that the court “should abstain from exercising that power because to do so would offend the sovereignty of the Republic of Mexico.” Id. at 602. Rejecting this argument, we noted that “at the most defendants’ Mexican registration of plaintiffs mark can have no greater effect than to confer upon defendants a license or permission to use the mark in Mexico.” Id. We reasoned that since no “public policy of Mexico requires defendants ever to exercise that license,” forbidding use of the license would cause “no affront to Mexican sovereignty or Mexican law.” Id.
Under Bulova and Las Palmas, the district-court was well within its discretion in issuing a nationwide injunction against AMC. In fact, each of the specific factors the Las Palmas court considered supports the propriety of nationwide relief. First, just as the law of Mexico did not require the Las Palmas defendants to exercise their counterfeit license, the law of the Fifth Circuit does not prevent AMC from providing comparable viewing angles in its theaters, such that the nationwide injunction causes no affront to Fifth Circuit law. See id.; see also Bulova, 344 U.S. at 289, 73 S.Ct. 252 (finding “no conflict which might ... impugn foreign law”). Moreover, surely no public policy of the Fifth Circuit requires that theater owners refrain from providing comparable viewing angles to disabled patrons, such that requiring AMC to do so would affront the Fifth Circuit’s sovereignty. Cf. Las Palmas, 146 F.Supp. at 602. Second, the Las Palmas court “emphasized that plaintiff does not seek a determination that any act of a foreign sovereign is invalid.” Id. Similarly, the DOJ does not seek to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of § 4.33.3. Finally, the Las Palmas plaintiff, like the DOJ, did not “ask this court to negate something that has already been determined in adversary proceedings between the parties at bar in a foreign forum.” Id. Accordingly, to the extent that Bulova and Las Palmas guide our analysis, we should conclude that “comity does not here argue against exercise of the power which the Congress has conferred,” id., and the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Nor would a nationwide injunction against AMC “encroach[ ] on the ability of other circuits to consider” how to construe § 4.33.3. Va. Soc’y for Human Life v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 263 F.3d 379, 393 (4th Cir.2001). In Virginia Society, an issue advocacy group sued the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) seeking a declaration that a particular regulation was unconstitutional. Id. at 381. The district court found the regulation unconstitutional and *779issued a nationwide injunction preventing the FEC from enforcing the regulation. Id. Finding the injunction overbroad, the Fourth Circuit remanded for modification on two grounds: First, the injunction was “broader than necessary to afford full relief’ to the plaintiff, as an injunction preventing enforcement of the regulation against the plaintiff alone would have “adequately protected] it from the feared prosecution.” Id. at 393. Second, the injunction had “the effect of precluding other circuits from ruling on the constitutionality” of the regulation. Id. Both Virginia Society factors weigh in favor of a nationwide injunction against AMC, as there would be no encroachment on the ability of other circuits to construe § 4.33.3, and the injunction would only apply to AMC — not to “any party anywhere.” Id. Thus, to the extent Virginia Society is persuasive, it too supports the grant of nationwide relief.
The majority’s reliance on Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 784 F.2d 959 (9th Cir.1986), is also misplaced. The Railway Labor Executives’ Association (“RLEA”) challenged the Interstate Commerce Commission’s (“ICC”) interpretation of the interplay between 49 U.S.C. § 10901 and § 10903. See id. at 961-63. The ICC claimed that only § 10901 governed its approval of the sale of a particular railway line to a noncarrier, such that any labor protections it might impose as a condition of its approval were discretionary, while the RLEA claimed that § 10903 interposed mandatory employee protections as a condition of the sale. Id. at 964. Before reaching the merits, we addressed the claim that collateral estoppel precluded our review because the RLEA had already raised — and lost — arguments on “this very legal issue” before the Tenth Circuit. Id. Assuming for the purpose of argument “the strict similarity” of the cases, we held that collateral estoppel did not bar RLEA from making its arguments before us, because the “employees whose interests RLEA seeks to protect here are not the same people whose interests it sought to protect in the Tenth Circuit case.” Id. Thus, there was “no mutuality of estop-pel.” Id. Similarly, the theaters governed by the nationwide injunction against AMC are not the same theaters whose accommodations were considered in Lara. More fundamentally, the DOJ was not a party to Lara, but merely filed an amicus brief, so principles of estoppel do not apply.
Railway Labor does acknowledge the widespread principle that the government may relitigate the same issue in different circuits. See id. As we noted there, “[i]t is standard practice for an agency to litigate the same issue in more than one circuit and to seek to enforce the agency’s interpretation selectively on persons subject to the agency’s jurisdiction in those circuits where its interpretation has not been judicially repudiated.” Id.; see also Va. Soc’y, 263 F.3d at 394 (declining to set aside an FEC regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act because then the “FEC would no longer be allowed to defend its regulation in front of other courts of appeals”). However, while certain agencies may selectively relitigate issues, collateral estoppel generally prevents private parties from doing so. As the Supreme Court has explained, this distinction reflects a longstanding recognition that “the Government is not in a position identical to that of a private litigant, both because of the geographic breadth of government litigation and also, most importantly, because of the nature of the issues the government litigates.” United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 159, 104 S.Ct. 568, 78 L.Ed.2d 379 (1984) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (refusing to apply nonmutual collateral estoppel to the government). Specifically, preventing the government from relitigating issues “would substantially thwart the development of important questions of law by *780freezing the first final decision rendered on a particular legal issue,” among other concerns. Id. at 160-61, 104 S.Ct. 568. The same cannot be said of private parties.
The majority emphasizes Railway Labor's recognition of the government’s ability to relitigate issues, but misconstrues its significance. The prepositional phrase “in those circuits where its interpretation has not been judicially repudiated” refers to the location of selective enforcement, not the scope of the remedy. Thus, the DOJ appropriately came to our circuit to enforce § 4.33.3 against AMC. A nationwide injunction against AMC remains the appropriate remedy, provided the injunction is tailored to the scope of the harm and compliance with the injunction would not force AMC to violate the law of another state or circuit. Accordingly, Railway Labor provides no indication that the district court abused its discretion by granting the DOJ nationwide relief.6
The majority’s reliance upon Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 810 F.2d 104 (6th Cir.1987) (per curiam), is somewhat perplexing. There, the Sixth Circuit conditionally approved the issuance of a nationwide injunction based on Michigan’s state law “right of publicity.” Id. at 105. The question before the Sixth Circuit was whether an injunction addressing violations of Michigan’s state law could extend beyond Michigan’s borders when it was unclear whether other states maintained similar substantive protections. Despite such concerns, the Sixth Circuit allowed the injunction, reasoning:
Because there are indications that other states would hold as we have predicted Michigan would, and because the defendant is uncertain, at this point, whether it wants to use the phrase “Here’s Johnny” in any state where the substantive law arguably differs from Michigan’s, we see no harm in letting the injunction stand in its present form for the time being, at least.
Id. Critical to the Sixth Circuit’s holding was the fact that if “the defendant should hereafter decide that it wants to use the phrase in a state (other than Michigan) where it believes such use would be legal but for the injunction, it will be free to seek a modification of the injunction.” Id. By predicting the probable trend of the law nationally, the Sixth Circuit was not adopting a requirement that the right must reasonably extend to other states in order for a nationwide injunction to issue. Rather, it merely observed that, as it saw “the equities, ... it would be fairer to require the defendant to take the litigation initiative ... than to require the plaintiffs to do so.” Id.
The Sixth Circuit was justifiably wary of permitting an injunction that would dictate behavior in other states on the basis of one state’s tort law. Our federal courts have long stood by the principle that the “common law so far as it is enforced in a State, whether called common law or not, is not the common law generally but the law of that State existing by the authority of that State without regard to what it may have been in England or anywhere else.” Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 79, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, while *781“[c]ircuit law ... binds all courts within a particular circuit, including the court of appeals itself,” Hart v. Massanari 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir.2001), the courts of appeal do not “retain a residuary and inviolable sovereignty” comparable to that of the States. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (discussing state sovereign immunity); see also Stauffer Chem. Co., 464 U.S. at 176, 104 S.Ct. 575 (White, J., concurring) (“[T]here are considerations of comity in the state/federal situation that are not present as between two circuits.”). On the contrary, the circuit courts share the responsibility of interpreting a common body of constitutional and federal law, and must render decisions that are consistent with the Supreme Court’s statement of the law. See Massanari 266 F.3d at 1171 (“A decision of the Supreme Court will control that corner of the law unless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules or modifies it. Judges of the inferior courts may voice their criticisms, but follow it they must.”). The nationwide injunction against AMC does not implicate the federalism and state sovereignty concerns at issue in Here’s Johnny. Unlike Michigan’s right of publicity, § 4.33.3 is a federal regulation that is as applicable in the Fifth Circuit as it is in the Ninth. For that reason, the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in Here’s Johnny does not apply here.
In light of the “considerable discretion” a district court has “in fashioning suitable relief and defining the terms of an injunction,” our precedent commands “correspondingly narrow” appellate review. Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir.1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). Unfortunately, the majority’s review is far from narrow. Instead, based on a tenuous apprehension of “substantial interference” with the law of the Fifth Circuit, the majority vacates the district court’s injunction without ever explaining how that remedial order was an abuse of discretion. Because the district court’s injunction did not exceed the specific harm alleged, it cannot have been overbroad. See id.; see also Bresgal, 843 F.2d at 1170-71 (“[A]n injunction is not necessarily made over-broad by extending benefit or protection to persons other than prevailing parties in the lawsuit — even if it is not a class action — if such breadth is necessary to give prevailing parties the relief to which they are entitled.” (emphasis omitted)). Moreover, because the relevant comity cases actually support the scope of the district court’s injunction, it is clear that the district court did not rely on erroneous legal principles. Confronting AMC’s nationwide violations of § 4.33.3, and keeping in mind the ADA’s stated purpose “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities,” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1), the district court was well within its discretion in granting nationwide relief. Thus, I dissent.
. I agree with the majority that AMC did not waive its right to appeal the nationwide scope of the injunction by participating in fashioning the injunctive relief as ordered by the district court, and do not dissent from that ruling. However, the majority bases its reversal of the district court on an argument— comity — that AMC never raised to the district court, but which the majority now erroneously views as pivotal.
. We review the scope of a district court’s remedial order for an "abuse of discretion.” Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486, 1493 (9th Cir.1996).
. In point of fact, other circuit courts also regularly countenance nationwide relief under federal law, often without reference to the law of their sister circuits. See, e.g., CBS Broad., Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 450 F.3d 505, 523-27 (11th Cir.2006) (finding a nationwide “pattern or practice” of violating 17 U.S.C. § 119(a)(7)(B) and granting a nationwide injunction against such activity); JTH Tax, Inc. v. H & R Block E. Tax Servs., Inc., 359 F.3d 699, 701 (4th Cir.2004) (considering potential violations of a nationwide injunction issued to enforce IRS regulations); United States v. Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d 913, 929 (8th Cir.1996) (holding that where "a geographically narrow injunction would be insufficient to advance” the government’s “significant interest” in nationwide relief, "the nationwide scope of the injunction is constitutional”); Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (6th Cir.1994) ("[T]he appropriate relief to be granted to the plaintiffs on their ... claim necessarily implicates nationwide relief.”); McLendon v. Cont'l Can Co., 908 F.2d 1171, 1182 (3d Cir.1990) ("It cannot be gainsaid that Continental has employed a liability avoidance program [ ('LAP') ], illegal wherever it is used. Full relief required a nationwide injunction ordering Continental to cease its use of this discriminatory LAP.”); see also Stiller v. Hardman, 324 F.2d 626, 628 (2d Cir.1963) (“The mandate of an injunction issued by a federal district court runs throughout the United States.”); 5 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy On Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 30:15 (4th ed. 2008) ("It is a familiar rule of Anglo-American law that once a court has obtained personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the court has power to command the defendant to do or not do acts outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court.”).
. The litigating position that has been consistently advanced by the DOJ in the years since Lara was decided provides sufficient "specific regulatory guidance” to cast doubt upon Lara's continuing viability. See Lara v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 207 F.3d 783, 788-89 (5th *777Cir.2000) (resting its holding on the "absence of specific regulatory guidance”). That is a question for courts within the Fifth Circuit; regardless of the answer, a nationwide injunction against AMC is appropriate.
. When we adopt an opinion of the district court as our own, that opinion becomes relevant precedent on the issues it decides. See, e.g., In re Gardenhire, 209 F.3d 1145, 1148 (9th Cir.2000).
. Although collateral estoppel does not apply to the current suit between DOJ and AMC, it is possible that further litigation between the parties regarding § 4.33.3 would indeed be barred. See United States v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 464 U.S. 165, 169, 104 S.Ct. 575, 78 L.Ed.2d 388 (1984) (holding that “the doctrine of mutual defensive collateral estoppel is applicable against the government to preclude relitigation of the same issue already litigated against the same party in another case involving virtually identical facts.”). Given that collateral estoppel could prevent the DOJ from enforcing § 4.33.3 against AMC in the future, a nationwide injunction against AMC appears particularly appropriate.