The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal district courts lack authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal (or nationwide) injunctions. Justice Barrett wrote the Court's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh filed separate concurrences. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. Justice Jackson also authored a separate dissent.
As described in Dykema's May edition, several plaintiffs challenged Executive Order 14160 issued by President Trump, restricting access to birthright U.S. citizenship. Three district courts responded by issuing universal injunctions blocking enforcement of the Order. After three circuit courts of appeals affirmed those injunctions, the federal government petitioned the Supreme Court for partial stays, arguing that any injunction should be limited to the named plaintiffs. The Court agreed to hear the case to determine whether federal courts have equitable power to issue nationwide injunctions.
The Court held that they do not. The Court held that universal injunctions are not authorized under the Judiciary Act of 1789 because they have no roots in traditional equitable practice. The Court emphasized that English courts of equity—the model for American equitable jurisdiction—historically limited relief to the parties before the court.
Acknowledging that the old English "bills of peace" allowed multiple plaintiffs to sue a common defendant, the Court clarified that such proceedings were more akin to modern Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class actions, which include defined procedures and protections that universal injunctions lack: a smaller, cohesive class and safeguards.
The Court also rejected the idea that the "complete relief" principle supports universal injunctions, explaining that equity seeks to provide complete relief only between the parties, even if that relief incidentally benefits others. Universal injunctions, by contrast, attempt to bind the government (or another enjoined party) as to all persons, regardless of whether they are parties to the case.
The Court also warned that universal injunctions encourage judge-shopping, create asymmetrical burdens on the government, and may lead to rushed judicial decisions that do not have nationwide consequences. The Court declined to address the underlying merits of the Order or whether narrower relief might be appropriate.
Concurring Opinions
- Justice Thomas emphasized that courts must tailor equitable relief narrowly to the parties before them.
- Justice Alito urged lower courts to apply stricter scrutiny when evaluating third-party standing and Rule 23 class certification.
- Justice Kavanaugh reiterated that the Court must exercise its supervisory authority in preliminary injunction cases and should not decline review when the legal issue will ultimately return on the merits. Justice Kavanaugh gives assurances that the Court will preserve national legal uniformity through its rulings on petitions for emergency relief. But what Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence does not address is the likely reality that the Court's decision will disincentivize the government from directly appealing or seeking certiorari following an adverse injunction that applies to only a single plaintiff or a small set of plaintiffs.
Dissents
The principal dissent, authored by Justice Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that the decision strips courts of the discretion historically afforded in equity and enables unlawful government conduct to persist by denying full relief to injured parties. The dissent emphasized that courts have long recognized the flexibility of equitable remedies, particularly when individual enforcement is impractical.
Justice Jackson's solo dissent focused more broadly on the role of the judiciary in checking executive power. She criticized the majority for prioritizing historical formalism over real-world consequences and warned that the decision may erode the judiciary's capacity to serve as a meaningful check on the executive branch.
Takeaways
- Universal Injunctions Disallowed and General Implications: The Court disapproved the use of universal injunctions, which may increase reliance on class actions certified under Rule 23 and create renewed focus on state courts as a potential avenue for broader equitable relief in cases against non-federal government defendants.
- Implications for Executive Order 14160: The Court did not reach the substance or merits of the birthright citizenship order, leaving the door open for continued litigation on that question.
- Unresolved Questions: Lower courts will need to address issues the Court left open, including the threshold for when incidental third-party benefits become impermissible universal relief, the standing of states to challenge executive orders, the impact of the Court's decision on other types of equitable relief, such as declaratory relief, and the scope of the Administrative Procedure Act's "set aside" remedy and Article III (see 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), directing courts reviewing agency action to "hold unlawful and set aside" rules found to be contrary to law).
- A Shift in Originalism: The majority's reliance on English chancery practice raises questions about the scope and application of historical reasoning in the Court's evolving approach to equitable powers.
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.
