On June 27, 2025, in Trump, et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal district courts likely do not have the Congressional authority to issue universal – or nationwide – injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789. While the decision concerns injunctions issued by district courts in Maryland, California, and Massachusetts – all of which blocked the implementation of Executive Order 14160 (“Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”) – the holding applies equally to all federal district courts, and its restriction on nationwide injunctions may impact employers. Here’s what you need to know.
In a Nutshell: Trump, et al. v. CASA, Inc. et al.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 (EO) which – effective as of February 19, 2025 – denies birthright citizenship to children born on American soil if at the time of their birth: (1) their mother was not lawfully present in the United States and their father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident; or (2) their mother was on a temporary visa status and their father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. Shortly thereafter, a group of individuals, organizations, and states filed lawsuits challenging the EO as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and § 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940.
In each case, the district courts found that the EO is likely unlawful and entered a nationwide preliminary injunction that barred executive officials from applying the policy to anyone in the country. However, on June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “[u]niversal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts” under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Notably, the Court declined to address whether the EO violated the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act. Opining only on the issue of whether federal courts have the authority to issue universal injunctions, the Court found that “the Government is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the District Courts’ entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act.”
Accordingly, the Court:
- Granted a partial stay of the preliminary injunctions to the extent that the injunctions are “broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff”; and
- Ordered the lower courts to “move expeditiously to ensure that . . . the injunctions comport with this rule . . . and comply with principles of equity.”
Broad Relief Against Agency Actions Under the APA
Employers should note that while the decision bars nationwide injunctions of executive orders, the status of nationwide injunctions of federal agency actions remains unclear. The Court explicitly confined its ruling to universal injunctions issued under the Judiciary Act – this leaves unresolved the question of whether federal courts may stay agency actions on a nationwide basis under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
In his concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh distinguished universal injunctions from class-wide relief, noting that “in cases under the [APA], plaintiffs may ask a court to preliminarily ‘set aside’ a new agency rule.” However, Justice Kavanaugh was careful to emphasize that the Court’s decision addresses only what district courts may do with respect to challenges to federal statutes and executive actions. Practically speaking, there may be the possibility for broad relief achieved through other avenues of redress.
Impact on Other Nationwide Injunctions
The impact of the decision on past nationwide injunctions is also unclear. As we wait for these issues to make its way to the Supreme Court, employers should take note of these prior nationwide injunctions barring certain federal agency actions:
- Overtime Rule: In 2016 and 2024, federal courts blocked a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) rule that would have increased the salary thresholds for exempt workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (see HERE).
- EEO-1 Pay Data Reporting: In 2019, a federal court ordered the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to reinstate expanded EEO-1 reporting requirements, including pay data by race and gender.
- Public Charge Rule: From 2019 to 2021, several courts blocked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s immigration changes that would have made it harder for foreign nationals to obtain work visas and green cards.
- Joint Employer Standards: In 2020, nationwide orders vacated changes to the DOL’s joint-employer rule.
- Union Election Rules: From 2020 to 2022, several courts blocked the National Labor Relations Board’s rules to streamline union elections.
- COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates: In 2021, federal courts blocked the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s emergency temporary standard, which required vaccination or testing for large employers.
- FTC’s Non-Compete Ban: In 2024, a federal court blocked the Federal Trade Commission’s final rule on non-compete agreements, which would have banned new non-compete agreements with nearly all workers (see HERE).
- 80/20 Tip Credit Rule: In 2024, the Fifth Circuit blocked the DOL’s rule to limit restaurants’ ability to claim the “tip credit” for work related to tipped employment.
- Title IX Gender Identity Protections: In 2025, several injunctions were issued affecting the U.S. Department of Education’s interpretation of gender identity protections by educational institutions and employers receiving federal funds.
Employer Takeaways
Pursuant to this decision, lower courts will be limited to providing injunctive relief only to the parties before them in that particular case with respect to challenges to executive orders, which include the anti-DEI Executive Orders, discussed HERE. Here’s what this means for employers:
- Employers can no longer rely on advocacy groups to obtain nationwide injunctions on executive orders.
- Employers seeking to enjoin the application of executive orders may have to file their own lawsuits based on their individualized circumstances.
- Employers may see an increase in class actions where injunctive relief is sought as an alternative to achieve broader injunctive relief.
- Employers should monitor for potential challenges to prior nationwide injunctions, including those that apply to agency actions.
If you have any questions related to the Court’s decision or the potential impact on your organization, please reach out to the NFC Attorney with whom you typically work or call us at 973.665.9100 or 619.292.0515.