Supreme Court, in 6-3 Decision, Curbs Lower Courts' Power to Issue Universal Injunctions

The U.S. Supreme Court has significantly curtailed the authority of federal district courts to issue universal injunctions, ruling in a 6-3 decision that such broad orders likely exceed the equitable powers granted to federal courts. The landmark ruling stems from a challenge to preliminary injunctions that had blocked the Trump administration's executive order on birthright citizenship.

Universal, or nationwide, injunctions are judicial orders that prevent the government from enforcing a law or policy against anyone, anywhere in the country, not just the specific parties involved in a lawsuit. These injunctions have been a growing point of contention, particularly in recent administrations, with critics arguing they lead to forum shopping and judicial overreach, while proponents assert their necessity to prevent widespread harm from potentially unlawful government actions.

The case, Trump v. CASA, Inc., involved several lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump's Executive Order 14160, signed at the outset of his second term. This order aimed to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States if their mothers were unlawfully present or temporarily present, and their fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Multiple lower federal courts, including those led by Judge John Coughenour, Judge Deborah Boardman, and Judge Leo Sorokin, had deemed the executive order "blatantly unconstitutional" and issued nationwide injunctions to halt its enforcement.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts." The Court found no historical precedent for such sweeping remedies in early English or U.S. equity practice, noting their rarity until the 21st century. The ruling emphasizes that federal courts "resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them," and that when the Executive Branch acts unlawfully, "the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."

The decision aligns with long-held views of some conservative justices, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has consistently expressed skepticism about the legality of universal injunctions. As noted by legal analyst Jonathan Turley, Justice Gorsuch delivered a pointed message to lower court judges in a related context: > "Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them." Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito also filed concurring opinions, with Thomas calling universal injunctions "legally and historically dubious" and Alito raising concerns about potential loopholes through third-party standing and class actions.

In a strong dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that the majority's ruling "renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit." Justice Jackson, in a separate dissent, contended that the decision "to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law."

Crucially, the Supreme Court's ruling did not address the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship executive order itself, leaving that question unresolved. While the injunctions will continue to bar enforcement of the order against the specific pregnant plaintiffs who initiated the challenges, the decision will necessitate more targeted litigation, potentially through class actions, for others seeking relief. This shift suggests a more fragmented legal landscape for challenges to federal policies, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate that broad injunctive relief is necessary to provide "complete relief" to the parties directly involved in the lawsuit.