Updated: Jun 4, 2025
If you’ve ever watched Succession, you know that the show is a fierce exploration of power, influence, and legacy, with each member of the Roy family vying to be the voice and changemaker of their family-owned company. At its core, Succession is not just about business; it’s about who gets to speak, who gets to decide, and ultimately who calls the shots when the rules are unclear, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. For those who haven’t watched the show, think about the character the Wizard of Oz, with the same opulence but slightly less ostentation.
It was hard not to think of Succession this past month as the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. CASA, Inc. While the substantive issues raised in the matter attracted more of the headlines (i.e., whether President Trump’s attempts to ban birthright citizenship are constitutional), the procedural argument over a lower court’s ability to enjoin presidential policies far beyond its geographic jurisdiction, and affecting all citizens instead of just the parties to a lawsuit, could have a similar seismic effect.
The issuance of national injunctions is a somewhat newer phenomenon in jurisprudence. The first one occurred in 1963, and during the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush years, courts averaged about 1.5 per year. The Obama administration was hit with approximately eighteen to twenty in his eight years in office, while twenty were issued in the first year of the first Trump administration. And they haven’t slowed down since. The subject matter of these national injunctions ranged from enjoining “don’t ask, don’t tell” and bathroom accessibility based on gender identity in the Obama years to immigration issues (including building the “wall” and rescinding DACA) in the Trump years. As you can probably guess, Republican appointed judges issued more of these during the Obama/Biden terms with Democratic judges doing the same during both Trump administrations.
Proponents of allowing a single judge to issue universal injunctions assert that they protect civil liberties for all citizens, not just the ones in their courtroom. A single nationwide injunction also favors judicial economy, in that in their absence, plaintiffs would need to file similar litigation in all 94 federal district courts. Since class action lawsuits, a possible alternative, take several years to be tried and are subject to various attacks on the composition of the class, irreparable harm cannot be avoided in their absence.
Opponents submit that they exceed the power granted to judges in Article III of the Constitution. Universal injunctions also encourage forum shopping, a practice where plaintiffs file in jurisdictions friendly to their respective provisions (e.g., federal district courts in Texas have had the overwhelming majority of these cases blocking policies of Democratic presidents, whereas Republican presidents have seen their causes estopped in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia).
It’s hard to predict which way SCOTUS will decide. While the Court is dominated by justices nominated by Republican presidents, and Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have criticized the practice in recent concurrences, it is likely not lost on them that both political parties have benefitted from the practice when the opposite party is in the White House. And while the federal court judges issuing nationwide injunctions do not have the same personal motivations as the Roy family in Succession, the power they wield is not unlike those craved by that craven family. Regardless of how the Court decides, this case will have significant ramifications on the judicial branch’s ability to restrict actions by the President. Stay tuned.
