Overview
Today, the United States Supreme Court limited the ability of federal courts to issue injunctions granting nationwide relief against executive action. In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Casa, Inc., held that universal injunctions – injunctions that prohibit state or federal actors from enforcing a law against individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit – likely exceed federal courts’ congressionally authorized equitable authority.
The case arose from challenges to President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship (EO), which attempted to limit the circumstances in which US-born persons are recognized as American citizens. Several individuals, organizations, and states challenged the EO in federal court alleging, in relevant part, that the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 201 of the Nationality Act.
Three federal district courts held that the EO is likely unlawful and entered preliminary injunctions prohibiting executive officials from implementing the policy anywhere in the country. After appellate courts affirmed the injunctions, the Department of Justice sought emergency relief in the Supreme Court, specifically seeking to limit the scope of the district courts’ injunctions to the plaintiffs in the case. Notably, the Solicitor General’s application for relief focused on the propriety of nationwide injunctions; it did not ask the Court to review the merits of the EO.
In an opinion written by Justice Barrett, the Court agreed with the federal government that the district courts’ universal equitable injunctions likely exceed the scope of relief courts are authorized to provide. The Court explained that, in granting federal courts jurisdiction over suits in equity – which the Court has held encompasses equitable remedies analogous to those accorded to courts of equity at the founding – Congress had not authorized federal courts to provide injunctive relief that extends beyond the parties to a lawsuit. Because the Court could not identify a founding-era analogue for universal injunctions, it held that federal courts may not use their equitable power to enjoin non-parties to a lawsuit. The Court also noted that broad relief is available through class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).[1] The Court did not address the merits of the parties’ legal challenges to the EO.
Although the decision is still fresh, there are a few immediate takeaways:
- Joining or filing litigation. Entities or persons relying on injunctions in cases to which they are not parties can no longer rely on the protection of broad injunctive relief. Now is a good time for those tracking litigation to consider intervening in pending cases or filing suit on their own behalf to benefit from the protection of injunctive relief. Amicus briefs can also provide an avenue for interested parties to weigh in on the scope of potential relief or other important issues in a case (although, as non-parties, amici might not benefit from injunctions protecting parties). Industries and organizations that have been most impacted by the administration’s actions to date, such as universities and clean energy companies, should take a close look at whether they now need to take action.
- Stays under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court limited its decision to federal courts’ equitable authority to issue nationwide injunctions. In a footnote, the Court expressly stated it was not resolving whether the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action. And the Court did not address the question whether Section 705 of the APA authorizes federal courts to issue widespread relief pending review of a challenged agency action. Challengers seeking to enjoin federal agency action should consider asserting APA claims where appropriate to preserve the possibility of broader remedies.[2]
- Class actions. Class action relief is not a clean substitute for nationwide injunctions. For one thing, many current claims against the administration’s actions are brought in the United States Court of Federal Claims, which only authorizes opt-in class litigation, effectively limiting the usefulness of this form of relief. For another, class certification does not guarantee relief for all affected individuals unless the class is properly defined and certified. Certifying a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires plaintiffs to meet strict procedural requirements – such as commonality and typicality – which can be difficult to establish and sometimes require burdensome discovery.
- Injunctive relief when a state is the plaintiff. The Court’s opinion acknowledged, but did not resolve, issues arising from the unique position of states as plaintiffs. When a state seeks relief for its own injuries, courts may still have the authority to issue broader injunctions that affect non-parties. Likewise, a state’s parens partriae authority asserts claims on behalf of its residents and thus might justify injunctive relief as to all residents in that state. This introduces uncertainty for clients involved in litigation alongside or against state actors. Parties should closely monitor how lower courts interpret and apply this aspect of the Court’s ruling – especially as the Court instructed lower federal courts to determine whether narrower injunctions are appropriate to address a state’s harms in the first instance.
- Impact on trade associations. Because the Court emphasized that equitable relief must generally be limited to the parties before the court, trade associations may face increased scrutiny when seeking broad injunctions that benefit non-party members. This underscores the importance of establishing clear associational standing and, where appropriate, joining members as plaintiffs.
Given the nuanced and jurisdiction-specific implications of this decision, clients should consider retaining counsel with experience in federal, state, and multi-state litigation to effectively navigate the shifting landscape of injunctive relief. Steptoe continues to follow these issues closely, with its extensive team including multiple former state and federal government officials.
[1] In a separate concurrence, Justice Alito observed that the majority opinion’s failure to resolve issues related to a state’s third-party standing and class certification might threaten the practical significance of the majority decision.
[2] Entities considering challenges to executive orders under the APA would benefit from deeper analysis about the viability of APA claims to challenge an executive order (as opposed to action taken by an executive agency).
