In a decision issued on June 27, 2025, Trump v. CASA, Inc. (a 6-3 ruling), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal District Courts lack authority to grant universal injunctions. In CASA, the United States District Courts for the Districts of Massachusetts, Maryland, and the Western District of Washington had previously issued universal preliminary injunctions against the January 20, 2025 Executive Order ending birthright citizenship for babies born in the United States to mothers either illegally in the country or visiting on a temporary basis and whose father is not a United States citizen or permanent legal resident (“the EO”). The U.S. Supreme Court did not address the legality of the EO, but its ruling lifts the preliminary injunctions except as to the parties, paving the way for the Trump administration to implement the EO otherwise, at least for the time being.
Prior to CASA, the national trend was for the lower federal courts to issue universal (or “nationwide”) injunctions to bar enforcement of various executive orders and agency action. Once a universal injunction was issued, the government could not enforce the matter being enjoined against anyone. Over the past several years, universal injunctions were issued in a wide array of employment related matters, including: an increase to the “white collar” exemption threshold under the Fair Labor Standards Act (twice); the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements; COVID-19 vaccine mandates; EEO-1 reporting requirements; the National Labor Relations Board’s union election and joint employer rules; and changes to eligibility for work visas. Under CASA, such universal injunctions are now prohibited.
However, the Court left open one possibility to obtain broad relief, the class action, which, in his concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to endorse. Class action suits—unlike broad pre-enforcement challenges—can be brought by individuals on behalf of all those “similarly situated,” meaning they share common injuries resulting from a widely applied policy. When certified as a class action by the court, an injunction could bar enforcement of government action against all members of the class. In the case of the lawsuit at issue in CASA, shortly after the Supreme Court issued its opinion, at least one lawsuit was amended to include class action allegations, and a new lawsuit was brought as a class action.
But class action litigation also brings with it its own challenges. Before a preliminary injunction could affect all members of the class, the class will have to be certified. Complex legal issues often arise during those proceedings, and not everyone affected by an executive order or administrative action may be “similarly situated.” The result could be an increase in the amount of litigation needed to challenge a single government action. Not only does this make challenging governmental action a lengthier process, but it could also create inconsistent rulings between jurisdictions, and jurisdictions where there is no challenge to the rule at all. Employers, already taxed with trying to keep up with always changing state and local laws, will also have to be vigilant about ensuring compliance across jurisdictions on a federal level.
CASA also left several questions open. While class action litigation is a possibility, whether it will be effective is unknown. Furthermore, CASA does not address how a federal law, which is supposed to apply nationally, will be enforced consistently when it is subject to injunctions with respect to only specific parties, states, or groups. The Court also specifically left for another day whether third party standing—by a state or public interest group—will be sufficient to obtain a preliminary injunction.