Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court will soon decide whether federal district courts have the authority to issue universal injunctions — orders that block executive branch policies from taking effect nationwide.
- If the Court eliminates universal injunctions, legal departments may face a patchwork of conflicting judicial rulings, increasing the need for jurisdiction-specific compliance strategies.
- However, employers still may have a mechanism for seeking universal relief from agency rules and regulations — universal vacatur — which would mitigate the disruption to the workplace.
The Supreme Court is prepared to determine the legality of a powerful but controversial judicial remedy — the universal injunction. The case, Trump v. CASA, Inc., reached the Justices after a lower court barred the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order related to birthright citizenship. The Court is now set to decide for the first time whether this sweeping form of relief passes constitutional muster.
What Is a Universal Injunction?
Federal courts routinely enjoin the government from enforcing laws or policies. Traditionally, these injunctions apply only to the parties in the lawsuit. Universal injunctions go much further, blocking the government from enforcing a law or policy against everyone nationwide, not just the parties before the court. This broad relief is often sought at the outset of the litigation and asks the court to enjoin a law or policy from taking effect immediately and indefinitely while the case proceeds.
A Surge in Use — and Scrutiny
Universal injunctions did not exist for most of American history. Even after the first universal injunction was issued in 1963, courts used the remedy sparingly, issuing just 27 during the 20th century. That has changed dramatically in recent years. During President Donald Trump's first term, courts issued 64 universal injunctions; and in the first three months of his second term, they issued 30 more.
This surge has drawn Supreme Court scrutiny. In 2018, Justice Clarence Thomas penned a concurrence urging the Court to review universal injunctions "if their popularity continues." In the years that followed, Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized the "rising number" of universal injunctions; Justice Brett Kavanaugh called their legality an "important question" that could warrant review; Justice Samuel Alito argued that they overstep "foundational limits" on equitable jurisdiction; and Justice Elena Kagan remarked in a law school forum that "[i]t just cannot be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal process." Congress has taken notice too. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on universal injunctions in February 2020 and, in February 2025, Rep. Darrell Issa introduced a bill to scale back their use.
The Legal Debate: Are Universal Injunctions Lawful?
Critics of universal injunctions have attacked their legal foundation and focused on policy consequences. Legally, critics argue that courts exceed their Article III powers by granting equitable relief to nonparties with no standing. They also point out that no statute authorizes universal injunctions, and they are not grounded in traditional principles of equity or constitutional authority. Critics insist that parties seeking universal injunctions should instead pursue a class action. Universal injunctions, they argue, sidestep the rules and procedures that govern class certification and joinder.
On a practical level, critics warn that universal injunctions encourage forum shopping. For example, district courts in Texas issued over half of the universal injunctions against the Obama administration, and Democrat-appointed judges issued more than 90 percent of the universal injunctions during the first Trump administration. Critics also note that universal injunctions are, by design, "fast and furious litigation." Because parties often seek universal injunctions at the beginning of a case, judges are forced to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.
Supporters counter that universal injunctions are sometimes necessary to ensure complete relief for plaintiffs. For instance, when an association sues on behalf of its members, a narrower injunction might be meaningless if the government can't identify all affected members. Supporters also argue that universal injunctions align with traditional equitable principles, as well as present-day equitable remedies like universal vacatur, which provide benefits to nonparties. They further maintain that universal injunctions are necessary to safeguard citizens from unconstitutional government action — particularly citizens without the resources or knowledge to file lawsuits of their own.
The End of Universal Injunctions: Implications for Employers
Universal injunctions offer employers clarity and security. When a court blocks a federal policy — say, an executive order that changes immigration practices or labor standards — employers can rely on that ruling to guide compliance decisions, confident that enforcement is paused. Without universal injunctions, employers could face a confusing patchwork of conflicting judicial decisions. An executive order might be enjoined in one jurisdiction but enforced in another, and legal departments would need to monitor regional rulings closely and develop jurisdiction-specific compliance strategies. Under this regime, the only way to secure nationwide relief would be through class-action proceedings — a complex, costly and time-consuming process. This would force legal departments to reassess litigation strategies and develop a more proactive approach to tracking and mitigating compliance risks.
Agency Rules and Regulations: A Remaining Path to Universal Relief?
The good news for employers is that Trump v. CASA, Inc. concerns an executive order, not an agency rule or regulation. That distinction matters. Unlike executive orders, agency rules and regulations are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). And under the APA, courts have the power to universally vacate unlawful rules and regulations. This remedy, known as "universal vacatur," has the same practical effect as a universal injunction — it prevents nationwide enforcement. For example, the Fifth Circuit recently utilized universal vacatur when setting aside the Department of Labor's (DOL) final rule regarding tipped occupations. Restaurant Law Center v. DOL, 120 F.4th 163, 177 (5th Cir. 2024) (setting aside the DOL's final rule under § 706(2) of the APA).
Universal vacatur is not at issue in Trump v. CASA, Inc., and because Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh have voiced support for universal vacatur, we don't expect the Court to disturb that remedy. That means employers will still be able to seek universal relief from unlawful rules and regulations promulgated by executive agencies (such as the DOL and EEOC), which typically have a greater impact on the workplace than executive orders. That said, if the Court rules that universal injunctions violate Article III of the Constitution, it could call into question the broader concept of universal relief, including universal vacatur. In that case, employers may face significant legal uncertainty when deciding whether to follow agency regulations invalidated by lower courts.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
