Supreme Court limits 'universal' injunctions in Trump v. Casa; leaves key questions for lower courts

The U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Casa concluded that lower federal courts likely lacked statutory authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal, or nationwide, injunctions and vacated three district-court injunctions without deciding the underlying merits, panelists said on the Federal Judicial Center's Term Talk podcast.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, described a universal injunction as “stopping the government from enforcing a particular government action against anyone, not just people who happen to be named parties in the case.” He noted the decision arose from litigation over a Jan. 20, 2025, executive order that sought to limit birthright citizenship and that three federal district courts had enjoined that order nationwide.

The majority, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, focused on whether the Judiciary Act of 1789 supplied courts with equitable authority for universal injunctions. The court found no historical analogue in eighteenth-century equity practice — citing, among other historical tools, the bill of peace — and concluded that the statutory grant of equitable powers did not authorize the modern practice of universal injunctions. The majority acknowledged, however, that courts may still provide “complete relief” to parties, which in some contexts can be broad.

Chemerinsky said the court relied on history to limit the judiciary’s equitable reach and added that the opinion left several important doctrinal questions unresolved, including the scope of Article III limits, the effects of vacating agency rules under the Administrative Procedure Act and the breadth of state standing and class-action remedies.

Tara Grove, professor and Vincent and Elkins Chair in Law at the University of Texas at Austin, said the decision will prompt litigation in lower courts as litigants test alternatives to universal injunctions. “So a lot of action is gonna happen going forward, as people try to deal with the questions that the Supreme Court did not decide in that case,” Grove said. She predicted an increased use of nationwide class actions and fights over what constitutes “complete relief.”

The decision drew sharp dissents. Chemerinsky described the dissents by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson (joined by Justice Elena Kagan in Sotomayor’s opinion) as “as vehement dissents as you'll find anywhere in The United States Reports.” The dissents argued that equity is flexible, that historical practice supports broader equitable authority and that eliminating nationwide injunctions could leave government actions unchecked in many districts.

Panelists said the ruling leaves open several practical and doctrinal questions for lower courts. Grove highlighted the Administrative Procedure Act as a locus of contention: when a district court vacates an agency rule, does that vacatur bind only the parties before the court or all regulated parties? She noted recent decisions that have made APA challenges more available and said the Court’s opinion made the question ripe for future litigation.

Chemerinsky and Grove disagreed about the near-term workload for lower courts. Grove suggested the decision may push plaintiffs toward class actions and could, in some contexts, reduce pressure on district courts to issue immediate nationwide relief. Chemerinsky countered that the same disputes will demand quick judicial attention even without nationwide injunctions and that lower courts will face burdens deciding alternatives, third-party and state standing questions and the reach of the APA.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was 6–3; the majority vacated three district-court injunctions in the consolidated litigation. The Court did not resolve the constitutionality of the executive order at issue, nor did it decide whether Article III or the APA independently permit broader relief. Panelists emphasized that those unresolved issues are likely to generate substantial litigation in federal courts across the country.

For now, scholars and practitioners said, the decision narrows one tool for nationwide relief but leaves open multiple pathways — including class actions and state suits — that litigants and lower courts will test in coming months.