At the end of its 2024-25 term, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal district courts do not have equity power to issue so-called “universal” (also known as “nationwide”) injunctions.
At issue in the three consolidated cases before the Court were challenges to President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 on birthright citizenship that was issued on January 20. The plaintiffs based their challenges on language of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Nationality Act of 1940.
However, since the Court’s decision, plaintiffs seeking universal injunctions seem to be getting what they want by other means.
Trump v. CASA, Inc.
In Trump v. CASA, a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court held that the federal statute establishing the federal court system, the Judiciary Act of 1789, does not give district courts the power to issue universal injunctions. The Court’s majority opinion was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and she was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas.
Particularly during the Obama, Trump I, Biden, and Trump II Administrations, federal district courts have issued “nationwide” injunctions, completely blocking the administration in power from putting certain regulations or Executive Orders into effect. One example from late 2016 is a nationwide injunction blocking an Obama-era increase in the salary threshold for certain exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The effect of such an injunction is that it applies nationwide – not just to the parties in the cases, and not just in the courts’ geographic territories.
In CASA, the parties obtained a nationwide injunction against President Trump’s Executive Order that would narrow birthright citizenship. The administration, in the Supreme Court proceeding, challenged the nationwide injunctions with emergency applications seeking partial stays, but did not seek to have the Court decide the birthright citizenship issue on its merits.
According to the Court’s majority opinion, universal injunctions were not a form of relief that courts of equity exercised when the Judiciary Act of 1789 was enacted, and thus federal district courts did not have the authority to issue that type of relief. The Court granted the Administration’s request for partial stays of the orders, “but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff [in the cases] with standing to sue.” The Court did not explain specifically what “complete relief” might be. But it did note that “’Complete relief’ is not synonymous with ‘universal relief.’”
Justice Barrett suggested that at least one other avenue was open to plaintiffs seeking broad relief, class actions, and Justice Kavanaugh, concurring, noted that broad challenges to federal regulatory action are available under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion in which the other two Justices joined, and Justice Jackson wrote a separate dissent.
The fallout and the “workaround”
The full implications from the CASA decision remain to be seen. Because the Court did not narrow the injunctions in the cases before it or provide specifics as to what “complete relief” to the plaintiffs in each of the cases might be, the plaintiffs are free to argue for their version(s) of “compete relief” on remand in the district courts. In any given case, a district court may decide that “complete relief” requires nationwide relief.
Meanwhile, plaintiffs and other parties are now pursuing class actions that seek nationwide class relief.
On June 27, the same day that the Court’s decision was issued, the named lead party in the Supreme Court case, CASA, re-styled its challenge to the birthright citizenship Executive Order as a class action and by emergency motion sought nationwide class relief.
And on July 10, a federal judge in New Hampshire ordered a nationwide temporary injunction in a challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union to the birthright citizenship Executive Order. The ACLU brought the lawsuit on behalf of a nationwide class of children who were or are in the future born in the United States and whose citizenship, current or future, is in jeopardy as a result of the Trump Executive Order. According to news reports, Judge Joseph Laplante, a George W. Bush appointee, informed the parties that his order would be stayed for seven days to allow the government to appeal.
Other plaintiffs are taking advantage of the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge federal actions. For example, on July 2, a federal judge in the District of Columbia issued an injunction based on President Trump’s Proclamations and guidance relating to asylum seekers on the southern border of the United States. The plaintiffs brought their challenge as a class action under the Immigration and Nationalization Act, and under the APA. Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, delayed the application of his order for 14 days to give the Administration time to appeal.
What now?
It is not clear that the end of most universal injunctions is going to be a boon for employers. Plaintiffs will be able to challenge federal regulatory action under the Administrative Procedure Act, and they are already attempting to get universal injunctions blocking any type of federal action by filing class action lawsuits.
