Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions and expands executive power

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, Inc. on June 27, 2025, that federal courts lack statutory authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions enjoining executive branch policies as to non-parties.

Justice Barrett wrote for the majority that equitable remedies must be limited to those traditionally available in the English Court of Chancery at the founding. The Court steered clear of whether Trump's birthright citizenship executive order violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

During the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, district courts issued approximately 25 universal injunctions blocking various policies. The CASA decision limits relief to only the parties in each action.

Justice Sotomayor dissented that the ruling 'renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit' and provides 'an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.'

Justice Jackson filed an additional dissent calling the decision 'an existential threat to the rule of law' because it permits the Executive 'to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued.'

The TikTok ban survived First Amendment challenge unanimously as national security concerns trumped 170 million users' free speech claims. Age verification laws for adult websites were upheld 6-3, giving states broad authority over internet access.

Class actions remain available to provide broad relief, as Sotomayor emphasized, but organizing class certification takes months while policies cause immediate harm to affected individuals.