Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Supreme Court curbs lower-court use of universal injunctions; experts say major open questions remain
Loading...
Summary
On the Federal Judicial Center's Term Talk podcast, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Professor Tara Grove discussed the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Trump v. Casa vacating three nationwide injunctions and the unresolved questions it leaves about class actions, the Administrative Procedure Act and state standing.
Jim Chance, senior judicial education attorney at the Federal Judicial Center, hosted a Term Talk episode examining the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. Casa and its implications for lower courts.
"What's called a universal injunction, sometimes a nationwide injunction, just means that the court is stopping the government from enforcing a particular government action against anyone, not just people who happen to be named parties in the case," said Tara Grove, professor and Vincent and Elkins Chair in Law at the University of Texas at Austin, defining the remedy at the center of the debate. Grove noted that three federal district courts had issued nationwide injunctions in the birthright citizenship cases after a January 20, 2025, executive order; the Supreme Court vacated those injunctions by a 6-3 vote without deciding the underlying merits.
Grove summarized the Court's analytical route: the majority focused on statutory authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 and concluded there was no historical analog authorizing the modern practice of universal injunctions. "The only way universal injunctions could be authorized is if they were somehow similar to equitable authority the courts had had in 1789," she said, recounting the majority opinion.
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, said the decision produces sharp practical questions for lower courts. "These are as vehement dissents as you'll find anywhere in The United States reports," he said of the dissents by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson, which he said fault the majority for an overly rigid historical inquiry and warned about consequences from eliminating nationwide relief.
Both panelists emphasized that the Court left several issues unresolved. The opinion did not decide whether Article III limits would independently permit universal relief, how far vacatur or other remedies under the Administrative Procedure Act can extend beyond the parties, or the precise scope of state standing when states sue on behalf of residents. Grove said those open questions will push litigants to pursue alternatives such as nationwide class actions and new fights over what constitutes "complete relief." "Plaintiffs are also gonna try to figure out what is the scope of complete relief," she said.
The podcast closed with both guests predicting a wave of litigation as lower courts test the boundaries the Supreme Court left open: more class-certification fights, renewed APA litigation about vacatur versus party-limited relief, and continued state-led suits against executive action.
The Term Talk episode did not report any new court filings; it presented analysis and predictions based on the Court's opinion and the authors' experience in constitutional and administrative law.
The episode ended with host Jim Chance thanking the guests and noting the discussion was intended to help lower-court judges, clerks and attorneys understand the decision's practical effects.
