ab ovo

Supreme Court restricts universal injunctions in Trump v. CASA

27 June 2025 · written 10 June 2026

On 27 June 2025 the Supreme Court of the United States held in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. ___ (2025), 145 S. Ct. 2540, that universal injunctions issued by federal district courts likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress gave federal courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789, granting the government’s emergency applications under Supreme Court Rule 23 for a partial stay of three preliminary injunctions that had been issued against Executive Order 14160 of 20 January 2025, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The three preliminary injunctions had issued from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (in CASA, Inc. v. Trump, Judge Deborah L. Boardman; emergency application No. 24A884), the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (in State of Washington v. Trump, Judge John C. Coughenour; No. 24A885) and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (in State of New Jersey v. Trump; No. 24A886).12 The Court ruled 6-3 with Justice Barrett writing the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh; Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, and Justice Jackson filed a separate dissenting opinion.3 The Court stayed the universal-injunction aspects of the three preliminary injunctions to the extent the injunctions extended relief beyond what was necessary to provide complete relief to the named plaintiffs, and stayed implementation of section 2 of Executive Order 14160 for 30 days from the date of the opinion, producing a 27 July 2025 effective date for the order’s birthright-citizenship provisions.45

  1. The Court traced the equitable authority of federal courts to section 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 78, which gave federal courts jurisdiction over “all suits … in equity.” The Court held that universal injunctions — defined as injunctions extending beyond what is necessary to provide complete relief to the parties in the case — were not a remedy traditionally available in equity at the time of the Founding and accordingly are not within the equitable authority conferred by the Judiciary Act. The Court distinguished “complete relief” injunctions, which may incidentally affect non-parties where necessary to afford the parties complete relief, from universal injunctions, which extend remedy to non-parties as a substantive remedial matter; the former remain within federal-court equitable authority, the latter likely do not.67

  2. The Court left open whether universal injunctions are ever permissible and did not reach the merits of Executive Order 14160 on birthright citizenship. The majority opinion declined to specify a rule for distinguishing permissible “complete relief” remedies from impermissible “universal” remedies in close cases and invited future litigation to develop the doctrine; the dissent argued that universal injunctions are a traditional equitable remedy and that the majority’s restriction would leave plaintiffs without effective remedy against widely applicable unlawful executive action.8910

  3. The decision restructures the procedural landscape for challenges to executive-branch action of general applicability. Plaintiffs seeking remedies that extend to non-parties must structure relief through (i) class actions certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 with class definition tracking the affected population; (ii) statewide or multi-state actions brought by state attorneys general claiming parens patriae standing to protect state residents; or (iii) Administrative Procedure Act actions seeking vacatur of agency action under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), which by its terms directs reviewing courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” found to be arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law (the APA vacatur remedy operates against the agency action rather than running to non-parties as an injunction).1112

  4. The Court’s order in Trump v. CASA applies prospectively to all federal injunctive proceedings; existing universal injunctions remain in effect until modified by the issuing court on motion of the affected party or sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The government’s compliance with the lower-court injunctions in CASA, Washington and the Maryland case continues to the extent the injunctions were narrowed to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs; the three district courts retain jurisdiction to consider modification motions and to conduct further proceedings on the merits of the EO 14160 challenges.1314

Footnotes

  1. Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. ___ (2025), 145 S. Ct. 2540 (decided 27 June 2025) (Barrett, J., for the Court); consolidated with Trump v. Washington (No. 24A885, application from W.D. Wash.) and Trump v. New Jersey (No. 24A886, application from D. Mass.). The Court’s order granted the government’s emergency applications under Supreme Court Rule 23 for a partial stay of three preliminary injunctions issued against Executive Order 14160. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf ↩

  2. Executive Order 14160 of 20 January 2025, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (29 January 2025), FR Doc. 2025-02007; section 2 directs federal agencies to apply a specified interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to children born in the United States to parents not lawfully present or temporarily present, with implementation provisions in section 3. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02007/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship ↩

  3. Vote breakdown: 6-3 majority. Majority — Barrett, J., for the Court, joined by Roberts, C.J., and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, JJ. Dissents — Sotomayor, J., dissenting, joined by Kagan and Jackson, JJ.; Jackson, J., dissenting separately. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf ↩

  4. The Court stayed the universal-injunction aspects of the lower-court preliminary injunctions to the extent the injunctions extended relief beyond what was necessary to provide complete relief to the named plaintiffs, leaving in place those portions of the lower-court orders necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs in each case. ↩

  5. The Court’s order stayed implementation of section 2 of Executive Order 14160 for 30 days from the date of the opinion (27 June 2025), producing a 27 July 2025 effective date for the order’s birthright-citizenship provisions. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf ↩

  6. The “complete relief” doctrine distinguishes injunctions that incidentally affect non-parties because complete relief to the named plaintiffs requires it (permissible) from injunctions that extend remedy to non-parties as a substantive remedial matter (impermissible under Trump v. CASA). ↩

  7. Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 11, 1 Stat. 73, 78 (giving federal courts jurisdiction over “all suits … in equity”); the historical-equity inquiry asks whether the remedy sought was traditionally available in equity at the time of the Founding. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-1/pdf/STATUTE-1-Pg73.pdf ↩

  8. The majority opinion declined to specify a definitive rule for distinguishing permissible “complete relief” remedies from impermissible “universal” remedies in close cases, leaving the doctrine to be developed through future litigation. The majority also declined to reach the merits of Executive Order 14160 on birthright citizenship, restricting the holding to the scope-of-remedy question. ↩

  9. Sotomayor, J., dissenting (joined by Kagan and Jackson, JJ.); the dissent argued that universal injunctions are a traditional equitable remedy with roots in pre-Founding English chancery practice and twentieth-century federal-court practice, and that the majority’s restriction would leave plaintiffs without effective remedy against widely applicable unlawful executive action. ↩

  10. Jackson, J., dissenting separately; the dissent emphasised that the majority’s restriction creates asymmetry between government and private litigants and undermines the rule of law in administration of generally applicable statutes and rules. ↩

  11. Post-CASA procedural landscape for challenges to executive-branch action of general applicability: (i) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class actions; (ii) state attorneys general parens patriae actions; (iii) Administrative Procedure Act vacatur actions under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The relative scope and efficacy of each pathway are subject to continuing doctrinal development; the question whether APA § 706(2) “set aside” extends to non-parties without offending the universal-injunction limit articulated in CASA is unresolved. https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure ↩

  12. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (Administrative Procedure Act standard of review): a reviewing court “shall … hold unlawful and set aside agency action” found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; the vacatur remedy operates against the agency action and is distinct from an injunction running to non-parties. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section706&edition=prelim ↩

  13. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (relief from a judgment or order on grounds including changed legal circumstances). Existing universal injunctions remain in effect until modified by the issuing court on motion or sua sponte. https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure ↩

  14. The three district courts (D. Md., W.D. Wash., D. Mass.) retain jurisdiction to consider modification motions and to conduct further proceedings on the merits of the EO 14160 challenges following the Trump v. CASA stay. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf ↩

courts