Supreme Court Limits Universal Injunctions to Party-Specific Relief in 6-3 Decision

The Supreme Court has significantly curtailed the power of federal district courts to issue universal or nationwide injunctions, ruling 6-3 in the landmark case Trump v. Casa, Inc. on June 27, 2025. This decision directly addresses a long-standing debate over the scope of judicial remedies, a concern recently echoed by social media users like "Upstate Federalist" who questioned, "what happens when district courts continue to issue nationwide injunctions after the Supreme Court told them to stop." The ruling stems from challenges to President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160 concerning birthright citizenship.

Universal injunctions, which block government policies nationwide, have seen a notable increase in recent decades. Data from the U.S. Department of Justice indicates a rise from 12 injunctions during the George W. Bush administration to 55 during the first Trump administration and 25 in the first 100 days of the second Trump administration. This trend prompted repeated calls from the Solicitor General and Supreme Court justices for clarity on their legality.

In its 6-3 opinion, authored by Justice Barrett, the Court held that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court reasoned that such broad relief lacks a historical analogue in the traditional practices of the High Court of Chancery in England at the nation's founding. It clarified that the issue before them was the scope of judicial power, not the constitutionality of President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160, which sought to redefine birthright citizenship. The Court found no remedy "remotely like a national injunction" in founding-era equity practice.

The decision drew strong dissents, with Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, arguing that the ruling "kneecaps the Judiciary's authority to stop the Executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies." Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, highlighted the need for rigorous enforcement of third-party standing and class certification requirements to prevent the "universal injunction" from returning "under the guise of 'nationwide class relief.'"

For litigants challenging federal administrative actions, the ruling means a likely end to broad, immediate nationwide relief from a single district court. Future challenges seeking widespread impact may need to pursue class action lawsuits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) or coordinate efforts across multiple jurisdictions. This judicial recalibration aims to bring more order and discipline to preliminary litigation concerning federal statutes and executive actions, emphasizing tailored relief specific to the parties involved.