BlogLine

U.S. Supreme Court prohibits nationwide injunctions, but the decision’s practical impact is uncertain

7/2/25

SCOTUS; courthouse; court

By: William H. Buechner, Jr.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA, Inc., — S. Ct. —, 2025 WL 1773631 (June 27, 2025) that district courts likely do not have the equitable authority to issue nationwide or universal injunctions, which are injunctions applicable to anyone, anywhere. Accordingly, the Court stayed the nationwide injunctions issued by three district courts enjoining enforcement of an executive order issued by President Trump limiting birthright citizenship, but only to the extent that the preliminary injunctions were broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. Id. at *15. In doing so, the Court did not rule on whether President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.    

This Court’s ruling in this case was widely anticipated. During the first 100 days of President Trump’s second term, district courts issued approximately 25 nationwide or universal injunctions stopping enforcement of numerous executive orders and other executive actions on a broad range of issues, including tariffs, immigration enforcement, spending cuts, termination of federal employees including high-ranking agency officials, and birthright citizenship. Many of these nationwide injunctions have been issued by district courts in Democrat-leaning states by judges appointed by Democrat presidents. Some of these nationwide injunctions have been stayed on appeal by federal appeals courts or the Supreme Court, but some have not. Proponents contend that these nationwide injunctions are necessary to stop President Trump’s unlawful executive orders and actions and prevent the chaos that would ensue if these executive orders were enforced in some jurisdictions but not others. Critics contend that these “rogue” district judges are motivated by political opposition to President Trump’s policy initiatives and that a single district judge should not be permitted to thwart the policies that the duly-elected president is seeking to implement. Of course, current critics of nationwide injunctions were in favor of them when district judges appointed by Republican presidents in Republican-leaning states issued nationwide injunctions to block some of President Biden’s initiatives, such as forgiving student loans and COVID-19 vaccine mandates.   

In its 6-3 decision in CASA, the Court explained that, although the Judiciary Act of 1789 grants jurisdiction to federal courts to adjudicate “all suits … in equity,” a federal court’s equity power is not “freewheeling.” Id., *6. The Court explained that federal courts in equity only have the power that the High Court of Chancery in England had in equity at the time the Constitution was adopted and which was recognized in founding-era equity courts in the United States. Id. The Court concluded that the High Court of Chancery did not have the authority to issue injunctions that were binding on nonparties. Id. at *6-7. The Court also cited several previous Supreme Court decisions that rebuffed requests for relief that extended beyond the parties to the case. Id. at *7. In addition, the Court emphasized that the instances in which a lower court granted a nationwide injunction even during the 20th century were relatively sparse, and that approximately 96 of the 127 nationwide injunctions issued by the lower courts were issued since 2000 during the administrations of George W. Bush, Obama, Biden and Trump. Id. at *8.   

The CASA decision may seem to significantly curtail the power of district courts to quickly halt on a nationwide basis the enforcement of executive orders, newly-enacted statutes and other executive actions that they deem to be unlawful. However, the impact may not necessarily prove to be as dramatic as it may initially appear. 

First, as noted in Justice Alito’s concurring opinion, plaintiffs may circumvent the prohibition against nationwide or universal injunctions by seeking to certify a nationwide class and then seek a preliminary injunction on behalf of the nationwide class. This would remedy the concern with allowing non-plaintiffs to benefit from an injunction granted in favor of party plaintiffs. However, getting a nationwide class certified is an arduous and time-consuming task that at a minimum likely will slow down the process of obtaining a broad preliminary injunction beyond the named plaintiffs. Nevertheless, whether the use of nationwide class actions effectively circumvents the Court’s prohibition against nationwide or universal injunctions will depend on whether district courts enforce the stringent requirements for class certification with the requisite vigor.   

Second, the Court expressly declined to rule on the scope of injunctive relief that states or advocacy organizations could obtain as plaintiffs on behalf of their residents or members. Id. at *4 n.2, 12. The states argued that a nationwide injunction was necessary to provide them with complete relief and prevent financial injuries and the administrative burdens of identifying which residents are from states that recognize full birthright citizenship and which states do not, for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits that require citizenship. This issue will be addressed in the court of appeals on remand.     

Third, the Court expressly stated that its ruling does not address “the distinct question” as to whether nationwide or universal injunctions may be appropriate under the Administrative Procedures Act when federal courts set aside a rule or regulation under the APA. Id. at *8 n.10.    

Also, as Justice Kavanaugh emphasized in a concurring opinion, the prohibition against nationwide injunctions does not change the normal course of events when a district court grants a motion for preliminary injunction. In that situation, the defendant may seek on an expedited or emergency basis a stay of that preliminary injunction by the appellate court. In order to obtain such a stay, the defendant-appellant must make a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal, irreparable harm and other items. Frequently, an appellate court’s grant of a stay of a preliminary injunction issued by the district court proves to be more critical than the actual merits of the appeal. The recent stay of a lower court’s preliminary injunction enjoining President Trump from unilaterally imposing tariffs on other countries is one of many examples of this phenomena. During the stay, it is possible or even likely that the Trump administration will reach deals with other countries using the threat of tariffs as leverage.   

Finally, it is worth noting that numerous nationwide injunctions adversely affecting employers have been issued by district courts in recent years and even in recent months. These include the COVID-19 vaccine mandates issued by the Biden administration in 2021; the stay of the Department of Labor’s regulations in 2024 that would have substantially increased higher minimum salary thresholds for white-collars exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act; the EEOC’s 2024 enforcement guidance on sexual harassment that expanded its interpretation of sexual harassment to include denial of various transgender protections; and the Federal Trade Commission’s new rule that would have banned most non-compete agreements as of September 4, 2024.  Even if the Trump administration does not pursue executive action such as those set forth above that would be unfavorable to employers, a future administration invariably will do so. When that occurs, it will be more difficult and time-consuming for employers to challenge any such unfavorable actions because nationwide preliminary injunctions by a sympathetic district judge in a sympathetic jurisdiction are no longer available.    

For more information, please contact William H. Buechner, Jr. at bill.buechner@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.