The End of Nationwide Injunctions?
- WULR Team
- 1 hour ago
- 3 min read
An analysis of universal injunctions and their legality
Published December 15th, 2025
Written by Rohan Susarla
Nationwide or universal injunctions have long been a conventional response to stopping the enforcement of executive-branch federal policy. These decisions by district courts around the country swiftly halt the application of the statute nationally, applying beyond just the plaintiff or the state in which they are located. The legality of these nationwide injunctions hadn’t been meaningfully tested, that is, until the nation’s top court consolidated three similar cases involving such injunctions in Trump v. Casa, Inc.
According to Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, an injunction is “a court order that directs a person to do something or to stop doing something.” In general, an injunction is a legal tool that provides equitable relief to a party in a dispute. Though the term “nationwide injunction” is not formally defined in law, the Congressional Research Service explains it as an order “against the government that prevents the government from implementing a challenged law, regulation, or other policy with respect to all persons and entities.”
These have become synonymous with executive orders in recent times, as lawsuits have been filed against federal statutes across the nation. It is worth noting, however, that nationwide injunctions have also been used against previous administrations. According to the Harvard Law Review, there were a total of 96 nationwide injunctions from 2001 to 2023, though the exact number varies based on how they are defined.
The case of Trump v. Casa, Inc. was heard before the United States Supreme Court alongside Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey, each challenging the same executive order. The plaintiffs in these cases comprised an assortment of individuals, states and organizations. At the district court level, the judges in all three cases issued nationwide injunctions barring enforcement of Executive Order No. 14160, which reinterprets the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. In each instance, the United States appealed the injunction to the respective court of appeals. All appeals were denied, leaving the injunctions in effect nationwide. The government then filed identical emergency petitions with the Supreme Court, contending that “universal injunctions transgress constitutional limits on the judicial power.”
In its 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court’s majority held that “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” The court further ruled that in this case, the “injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff.” Essentially, the court stated that the nationwide injunctions issued at the district court level were unnecessarily expansive.
The Court’s majority decision anchors heavily in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which outlines the powers that are afforded to federal courts. In its reasoning, the Supreme Court examines the historical development of the federal judicial system and its roots in the Court of Chancery of England. Before contending that these types of orders lack a “founding-era forebear,” and hence cannot be issued by federal courts.
Writing for the majority, Justice Barrett makes her view clear, contending that “as a matter of law, the injunction’s protection extends only to the suing plaintiff.” The central legal question, then, is straightforward: What authority do district courts have to issue universal injunctions? Moreover, if such injunctions bind far beyond the plaintiffs before the court, how does that make the plaintiffs’ relief more “complete”? These are the questions that lawyers and state attorneys general will now have to litigate in the lower courts in the coming months. Importantly, the Supreme Court has largely left those courts with the final decision on the scope of the injunctions, provided the order remains within the limits of equitable authority.
As the Court’s opinion suggests, a nationwide injunction effectively creates de facto classes at will, circumventing any class certification procedures required under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The days of nationwide injunctions as freely issued remedies appear to be over, a reality underscored by developments in the lower courts. In July, a federal judge in New Hampshire certified a nationwide class in Barbara v. Trump and, at the same time, ordered a nationwide preliminary injunction of Executive Order No. 1416 — demonstrating that broad relief will now hinge on formal class certification rather than judicial discretion alone.
After this entire ordeal, it appears that coveted nationwide injunctions are not dead, only merely subdued. This time, however, the injunction’s equitable reach lies behind the veiled wall of class certification.
