What You Need to Know:
- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal courts lack the authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789, partially staying the preliminary injunctions prohibiting the enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160, which purports to abrogate birthright citizenship.
- The Court's opinion emphasizes that universal injunctions were not part of historical equity practice during the Founding era and have no statutory grant of authority.
- The decision has significant implications for how parties develop affirmative litigation strategies against the federal government.
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal courts lack the authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789. In so ruling, the Court granted the government's applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions prohibiting it from enforcing President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160, which purports to abrogate birthright citizenship. The opinion has significant implications for clients subject to federal statutes and executive actions, especially those who are not parties to litigation but are currently covered by a universal injunction.
Background
Trump v. CASA involves the government's application for a partial stay of three district courts' universal preliminary injunctions against implementation and enforcement of Executive Order No. 14160. The Order, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," purports to deny U.S. citizenship to individuals born in the United States whose parents do not meet certain criteria of citizenship or lawful permanent residence. Three district courts independently concluded that the Executive Order was likely unlawful and entered universal preliminary injunctions prohibiting its enforcement, not only against the plaintiffs but also against others who are not parties to the cases. 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 of the merits, the opinion does not address whether the Executive Order comports with the Citizenship Clause or the Immigration and Nationality Act; that issue is subject to continued litigation in lower courts.
The Opinion
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion for the Court, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. The Court emphasized that it addresses only whether federal courts have authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789 and does not address whether such authority is permitted by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have jurisdiction over "all suits ... in equity" and hold the remedial powers accorded to courts of equity at the time of the Founding, both in England and in the United States. Looking to historical practice, the Court concluded that no "analogous form of relief" as expansive as universal injunctions existed during the Founding era. Rather, the Court concluded that district courts first started to grant universal injunctions in the twentieth century. The absence of universal injunctions in equity practice for most of the nation's history, the Court stated, "settles the question of judicial authority."
The majority rejected several of the dissent's arguments. First, the majority determined that historical "bills of peace" were more analogous to modern-day class actions, not universal injunctions. Second, the majority determined that 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 and noted that universal injunctions also carry negative consequences, such as forum shopping and rushed decision-making.
The Court granted applications to partially stay the district courts' universal injunctions "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue." The Court also stayed the injunctions to the extent they prohibited executive agencies from preparing public guidance implementing the President's Executive Order. The lower courts were instructed expeditiously to determine in the first instance the appropriate scope of injunctions that, consistent with the Court's opinion, will afford the different plaintiffs—individuals, states, and associations—complete relief in each case.
Takeaways and Implications
Trump v. CASA will have significant implications for litigation challenging federal statutes and executive actions, but several avenues remain available to obtain relief:
- Rule 23(b) Class Actions: Plaintiffs may continue to seek broad preliminary injunctive relief for large—even nationwide—classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). To certify such a class, however, the plaintiffs must demonstrate numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of the named plaintiffs to represent the class. These requirements may narrow the types of cases in which preliminary injunctive relief is available. We anticipate a significant influx of class-action litigation in federal court. And, indeed, news reports indicated that the individual plaintiffs in the CASA matter had already amended their complaint to seek class treatment by the afternoon of the day the decision was handed down.
- APA Vacatur: The Court noted that "[n]othing [in its decision] resolves the distinct question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action." The APA specifically provides that Courts may "set aside" unlawful regulations, for example, as well as stay those regulations from taking effect pending the outcome of the case. Accordingly, plaintiffs may continue to challenge agency action under the APA and obtain the broad relief of vacatur, which by its nature also affords relief to nonparties.
- State Plaintiffs: State plaintiffs may continue to seek relief for their own injuries, which may inherently result in relief for nonparties, such as the citizens of those states. The Court, however, left open whether states have third-party standing where their claims rely exclusively on the rights of individuals. Going forward, district courts will likely take varying approaches to defining the breadth of relief that is appropriate for states, which will in turn affect the breadth of relief provided to nonparties.
- Interim Appellate Review: Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence emphasizes that courts of appeals and the Supreme Court can provide appellate guidance in the course of interlocutory proceedings. In Justice Kavanaugh's view, when the Court grants or denies an application for preliminary relief, "that decision will often constitute a form of precedent (de jure or de facto) that provides guidance throughout the United States during the years-long interim period until a final decision on the merits." In other words, the Court can provide nationwide precedent on the interim legal status of a challenged executive action at an early stage and can do so expeditiously. In dissent, Justice Sotomayor pointed out that appellate review may be sought only by the losing party, and thus 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.
Other issues left open by the Court's decision may also affect the availability of broad relief going forward. For example, the Court did not address whether an injunction can properly run to the benefit of all members of an associational plaintiff. Additionally, Justice Thomas's concurrence suggests that universal injunctions may be unconstitutional and thus would not be permissible even if Congress provided for them by statute. This view could prompt subsequent constitutional challenges to broad judicial relief, such as under the APA or even in class actions.
Trump v. CASA will significantly affect how parties develop affirmative litigation strategy against the federal government. WilmerHale is closely monitoring developments in this area and regularly counsels clients on the impact of and challenges to major federal statutes and executive actions.
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.
