Employment Law Report
Supreme Court Signals Likely End of Nationwide Injunctions: Class Actions New Avenue for Nationwide Relief of Government Actions
Written By Sharon Gold with assistance from Jon E. B. McGee, Wyatt Summer Associate
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that nationwide or “universal” injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts by Congress. Nationwide injunctions have been utilized to challenge numerous employment-related regulations promulgated by administrations of both political parties, including the Biden era raise to the salary minimum, and the Trump era revised joint employer and union election rules, among others. In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Court ultimately granted the Government stays of three underlying injunctions to the extent they were broader than necessary to provide complete relief to the named parties.
The three universal injunctions the Court stayed enjoined the Trump Administration from enforcing Executive Order No. 14160. The order, colloquially known as the Administration’s “birthright citizenship” order, identifies circumstances when a person born in the U.S. is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” under the 14th Amendment and, thus, not a citizen.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling did not contemplate the constitutionality of the underlying executive order. Instead, the Court decided that the Trump Administration is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the universal injunctions issued in the birthright citizenship cases—which enjoin the executive from enforcing contested policies across the nation—exceed the authority of federal courts because they are likely broader than necessary to provide complete relief to the named parties. The Court left it to the lower courts to definitively determine whether the injunctions are too broad, as well as to reach the merits of the underlying cases.
Nevertheless, the reasoning beneath the Court’s decision to stay the universal injunctions concludes that federal courts are not empowered to issue universal injunctions, although the ruling technically held that this was merely “likely.” Thus, even if the ruling does not technically abolish the universal injunction itself, it minimally indicates that the Court will do so as soon as they have the opportunity. It also provides a roadmap for lower courts considering these cases to follow the Supreme Court’s lead.
Therefore, the practical result of the Court’s ruling is that injunctions obtained by litigants will be effective only against the individual plaintiffs in those cases. Given this, the Court’s ruling also generally recognized the ability of injunctions obtained through class actions to provide the same type of relief.
In response to the Court’s ruling, the ACLU and others brought a proposed class action on behalf of babies subject to the executive order. The lower court granted an injunction against the Executive Order and granted nationwide status. The Government is expected to appeal the ruling.
The Implications for Employers
Trump v. CASA, Inc. decision signals the “likely,” if not actual, end of the universal injunction, a popular tool for individuals, organizations, and others to stall executive, legislative, and administrative policy changes nationwide (against several administrations) and on an expedited basis. The new avenue for relief will likely be class actions.
The decision may also mean that groups opposing injunctions against Biden or Trump era rules that were previously stayed may be challenged. The decision could also mean potentially conflicting decisions from different courts on the same rules.
As a result, Trump v. CASA, Inc. makes it all the more important for employers to be proactive in understanding and complying with ever-changing regulatory changes enforced through federal agencies. Please reach out to our Labor and Employment team with any questions.
