Last Friday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling significantly limiting the authority of federal district courts to issue universal (nationwide) injunctions.
The opinion stated: “Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch’ . . . . But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
The Court held that district judges may only provide “complete relief” to the specific parties before them, rejecting the broader practice of barring the specific government enforcement actions nationwide. In other words, district courts may not issue injunctions that affect nonparties to the litigation before them.
The decision comes in response to nationwide preliminary injunctions issued by federal district court judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington states, challenging several of President Trump’s recent executive orders; including in the instant case, the executive order limiting birthright citizenship to babies born to at least one U.S. citizen or permanent resident parent. The executive order will take limited effect in 30 days.
Notably, the Court did not weigh in on the constitutionality of the executive order, which is still being challenged.
You can read the Court’s full decision here: 24A884 Trump v. CASA, Inc. (06/27/2025)