Supreme Court Might Kill Nationwide Injunctions

Yahoo

04-06-2025

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week that could reshape how federal courts block executive actions. On the surface, the justices seem prepared to rein in nationwide injunctions, the increasingly common tool used by lower courts to halt policies not only for the plaintiffs before them, but across all 50 states. In just the first five months of 2025, federal judges have issued such injunctions to block President Trumps executive order on birthright citizenship, his attempt to defund hospitals hospitals providing "gender-affirming" care to minors, and his sweeping pause on federal grants tied to diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Conservatives have long criticized the practice as lawless and unmoored from the limits of Article III of the Constitution. Progressives, now more reliant on such relief to block Trump-era policies, argue its sometimes the only way to prevent constitutional harm from spreading while litigation unfolds.
Whats likely to emerge, though, is not a bold doctrinal ruling but a narrow, compromise opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts. If that happens, the decision will offer a cautionary tale in judicial self-protection, in which institutional preservation is masked as constitutional principle, leaving the underlying structural problem untouched.
The case, Trump v. CASA, centers on President Trumps executive order to limit birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. Lower courts have blocked the policy through nationwide injunctions, prompting the administration to challenge their legitimacy.
During oral argument, Roberts and several justices expressed concern about the expanding use of nationwide relief. Justice Alito called it a "disease" spreading through the federal courts. Justice Gorsuch warned about turning single judges into de facto national policymakers. But what was just as telling were the breadcrumbs dropped about a likely off-ramp: class certification. That means that instead of issuing an order that halts a federal policy "nationwide," a district judge could define a class - say, all U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants - and enjoin enforcement of the policy against the entire group. The end result would be practically identical.
If the court rules that nationwide injunctions are unconstitutional, lower courts may simply respond by certifying plaintiff classes broad enough to justify system-wide relief. In effect, judges will achieve the same outcome under a different procedural theory. Executive policies will still be blocked nationwide, but the mechanism will be dressed in new robes.
Thats not judicial restraint. Thats a judicial workaround.
And the impulse to allow it without acknowledging it seems likely to come from the courts center. Roberts, ever the institutionalist, is clearly sensitive to the perception that the judiciary is inserting itself into national policymaking. But his instinct is to manage appearances, not confront structure.
The problem with nationwide injunctions is not just that theyre controversial. Its that they enable a single unelected district judge to dictate federal policy far beyond their jurisdiction. Thats not a political complaint; its a constitutional one. When trial courts routinely bind nonparties and issue system-wide relief, they exceed the role Article III envisions.
A real ruling would address that head-on. It would clarify whether and when courts can bind the federal government outside the scope of the parties before them. It would not tinker with the tools while ignoring the incentives.
Whats needed is not just a change in doctrine. Its a change in expectations. The first federal judge to issue a sweeping order shouldnt dictate national policy while appellate review drags on. A healthier structure would encourage narrow, party-specific relief until questions of law are settled by circuit courts or, ultimately, the Supreme Court.
Instead, Roberts seems poised to split the baby. Hell signal disapproval of nationwide injunctions in form, while leaving the door wide open to class-wide relief that functions identically. The court will protect its image without restoring the actual boundaries of judicial power.
To be clear, institutional legitimacy is worth caring about. But it doesnt come from a neutral tone or procedural sleight of hand. It comes from the courage to decide structural questions clearly, even when the result is politically uncomfortable. Roberts wants to preserve the courts reputation - but preservation isnt the mission. Judgment is.
In the short term, the Trump administrations birthright order may still be blocked, just not by a "nationwide injunction." In the long term, lower courts will read between the lines. Theyll continue to halt national policy from the trial bench, using slightly different procedural tools, with a nod and a wink from the Supreme Court.
The court may technically strike down nationwide injunctions. But it wont stop them.
Justin Evan Smith is a law student, business strategist, and contributor with Young Voices. Follow him on X @thejustinevan.