On June 27, in Trump v. Casa, the Supreme Court held that federal courts lack equitable authority to issue "nationwide"—or, using the Court's preferred parlance, "universal"—injunctions. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Barrett explained that whether Congress vested the judiciary with such power depends on the existence of a founding-era antecedent to the practice of universal injunctions. Finding none, the Court held that universal injunctions fall outside a federal court's equitable authority.
But what about injunctive relief for a nationwide class? The majority did not take this issue up. In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas, Justice Alito spotlighted the omission as a "potentially significant loophole." Observing that the Court's "decision will have very little value" if plaintiffs can secure the same purportedly foreclosed outcome by getting a nationwide class certified, Justice Alito admonished: "district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23. Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave."
And return it may. Within hours of the Court's decision, attorneys for CASA moved for a preliminary injunction over birthright citizenship on behalf of a nationwide class, and, on July 10, the Maryland federal court certified the proposed class.
This is surely not the last word on point. How courts tackle the lingering class-action question will have ripple effects for industry and beyond nationwide.
Crowell will continue to monitor developments as litigants and courts test the boundaries of Trump v. Casa.
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.
