Supreme Court Calls Universal Injunctions Into Doubt
Client Alert | June 27, 2025
Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884 – Decided June 27, 2025
Today, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that district courts were wrong to grant “universal” preliminary injunctions against the government’s enforcement of a presidential executive order, and that any injunctive relief should be limited to the parties in those cases.
“‘[U]niversal injunctions’ . . . likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”
Justice Barrett, writing for the Court
Background:
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order identifies two groups of persons whom the government should not recognize as United States citizens, even though they were born in the United States. The order directs federal officials not to issue documents recognizing U.S. citizenship for those individuals, to reject documents issued by state or local governments recognizing their citizenship, and to develop and issue public guidance on how to carry out the order within 30 days.
Shortly after the order’s issuance, three federal district courts granted universal preliminary injunctions, which forbade the government from taking steps to carry out the order’s directives against any person, anywhere in the country. The government defendants asked each district court (and later, the First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits) for a partial stay of the preliminary injunctions. Their requests were denied. The government defendants then asked the Supreme Court for a partial stay. They argued that the Court should narrow the preliminary injunctions’ scope to protect only the individuals and identified members of the organizations who challenged the order, which would allow the order to go into effect against nonparties.
Issue:
May federal courts issue universal preliminary injunctions in favor of nonparties against the government?
Court’s Holding:
No. Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress granted to federal courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
What It Means:
- Today’s decision confirms that federal district courts likely do not have the power to grant universal preliminary injunctions, which temporarily forbid the government from enforcing a challenged federal action against anyone affected by the action, anywhere in the United States (even against nonparties to the lawsuit). The Court explained that while Congress endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over “all suits . . . in equity” in the Judiciary Act of 1789, courts’ power to fashion equitable remedies only encompasses those remedies “traditionally accorded by courts of equity” at the nation’s Founding.
- The Court noted that it was not deciding whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action under the provision allowing courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The Court’s decision therefore does not affect plaintiffs’ ability to ask courts to “set aside” an agency action, even when some affected individuals are not parties to the APA suit.
- The Court’s ruling signals to plaintiffs that they must consider alternative avenues to expedite their challenges to executive or legislative actions. These avenues may include Rule 23 class actions, lawsuits under civil rights legislation such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and actions to enjoin officials under Ex parte Young.
- One consequence of today’s decision may be a reduction in the number of emergency applications to the United States Supreme Court. In recent years, a rise in the number of universal injunctions granted by district courts resulted in a sharp increase in emergency applications to the Supreme Court and a corresponding increase in decisions on the so-called “shadow docket”—the name that critics gave to the Court’s emergency docket. Today’s decision could result in a decrease in these applications going forward.
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the U.S. Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice group leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law
| Thomas H. Dupree Jr. +1 202.955.8547 tdupree@gibsondunn.com |
Allyson N. Ho +1 214.698.3233 aho@gibsondunn.com |
Julian W. Poon +1 213.229.7758 jpoon@gibsondunn.com |
|
Lucas C. Townsend +1 202.887.3731 ltownsend@gibsondunn.com |
Bradley J. Hamburger +1 213.229.7658 bhamburger@gibsondunn.com |
Brad G. Hubbard +1 214.698.3326 bhubbard@gibsondunn.com |
Related Practice: Administrative Law and Regulatory
|
Stuart F. Delery |
Eugene Scalia |
Helgi C. Walker |
This alert was prepared by associates Stephen Hammer and Audrey Payne.
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.