Universal injunctions
Trump v. Casa Inc.
Date: June 27, 2025
Issue: Whether federal courts have authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Case Summary: In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that universal injunctions likely exceed the authority that Congress has given federal courts.
Three district courts issued universal injunctions blocking the enforcement of Executive Order No. 14160. Universal injunctions, also known as nationwide injunctions, are court orders that apply to a broader group of affected individuals or entities nationwide. Three different categories of plaintiffs brought challenges in these cases and received their own forms of relief: individuals, states, and an association. The First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits denied applications to stay the injunctions, allowing those universal injunctions to stand.
The government sought a stay pending the appeals and any further review by the Court. The Court’s decision addresses only whether federal courts have the authority to issue universal injunctions. Because the government did not seek review on the merits, the opinion does not address whether the executive order comports with the Citizenship Clause or the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, granted the government’s request to partially stay the injunction, ruling federal district courts likely lack the authority to issue universal injunctions. The majority concluded the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorizes federal courts to issue equitable remedies, does not extend to universal injunctions. Looking to historical practice, the majority concluded no “analogous form of relief” as expansive as universal injunctions existed during the founding era. The majority observed that universal injunctions were conspicuously nonexistent for most of the Nation’s history, and the only “analogous” form of relief in modern practice is a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In the Court’s view, “the absence of universal injunctions in equity practice for most of the nation’s history settles the question of judicial authority.”
The majority emphasized that injunctions should provide “complete relief” to the plaintiffs but should not extend beyond what is necessary to achieve that relief. As described by the majority, “complete relief is not synonymous with universal relief,” which is a “narrower concept” that addresses providing relief between the parties. “Here, prohibiting enforcement of the executive order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,” the Court noted. “Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete.” At the same time, in a footnote, the majority clarified that “nothing [in its decision] resolves the distinct question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action.”
The majority rejected the dissent’s arguments. First, the majority determined historical “bills of peace” — a group-litigation tool used in the Court of Chancery — were more analogous to modern-day class actions, not universal injunctions. Second, the majority determined the equitable power to provide “complete relief” was confined to the parties to the action and did not extend to nonparties. Third, the majority rejected the dissent’s policy arguments, noting that universal injunctions also carry negative consequences, such as forum shopping and rushed decision-making.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito each filed concurring opinions. Justice Thomas emphasized the importance of tailoring remedies to specific parties. Justice Thomas suggested that universal injunctions may be unconstitutional and thus would not be permissible even if Congress provided for them by statute. Justice Kavanaugh emphasized that courts of appeals and the Supreme Court can provide appellate guidance during interlocutory proceedings: by granting or denying preliminary relief, “the decision will often constitute a form of precedent … that provides guidance throughout the United States during the years-long interim period until a final decision on the merits.” Justice Alito observed the majority’s failure to resolve issues related to a state’s third-party standing and class certification might threaten the practical significance of the majority decision.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson each filed dissenting opinions. Justice Sotomayor argued the majority’s holding allows the government to continue to enforce an unconstitutional order against parties unless they file their own suit. She also pointed out appellate review may be sought only by the losing party, and so if the government declines to appeal a decision protecting a single plaintiff, there will be no opportunity for review by an appellate court or the Supreme Court. In addition, Justice Jackson argued the majority decision allows the Executive Branch to continue violating the Constitution against anyone who has not yet filed a lawsuit, calling it an “existential threat to the rule of law.” As described by Justice Jackson, when the government asks a court to not issue a universal injunction as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct, it is effectively seeking permission to keep engaging in that conduct, even after a court has found it likely violates the Constitution.
Bottom Line: The Court granted the administration’s applications to stay the injunctions “to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary” and ordered the lower courts to “move expeditiously to ensure that, for each plaintiff, the injunctions comport” with the ruling and the principles of equity.
Document: Opinion
