The Supreme Court’s opinion setting new limits on the power of district-court judges to use one of their most potent tools — nationwide injunctions — marks the beginning of a profound shift in the way the federal courts do business.
Before, more than 1,000 judges had the power to issue nationwide orders that could stop the federal government in its tracks.
Now, those judges’ rulings can only apply to the actual plaintiffs in the case.
Friday’s opinion could affect any case, on any issue, where a federal judge makes a ruling that extends beyond the party or parties that actually brought the lawsuit. It left open the possibility that judges could still block government actions nationwide, but only in situations where there was no narrower approach available that would protect the actual plaintiffs whom the court is seeking to benefit.
Friday’s ruling will lead to a drastic reduction in the federal courts’ ability to check the White House, according to Judith Resnik, a professor at Yale Law School. Nationwide injunctions give courts “the capacity to tell the key nationwide actor, the executive branch, to behave lawfully,” she said.
District-court judges have repeatedly used nationwide injunctions to block Trump administration policies, including to halt the firing of civil servants, the defunding of foreign aid and the relocation of transgender women in federal prisons to men’s housing. Some of those injunctions have been lifted by higher courts; many, including those detailed below, remain in place, at least for now.
While some scholars trace the origins of nationwide injunctions, also known as “universal” injunctions, back to the early 20th century, their widespread use as a check on presidential power is relatively new and has been wielded against presidents of both parties.
The Trump White House has argued that lower-court judges are relying on nationwide injunctions to interfere with the president’s agenda in ways that overstep the courts’ constitutional role; his critics say that the rise in nationwide injunctions is driven by what they perceive to be the administration’s willingness to flout the law in the pursuit of his policy goals.
As of mid-May there were more than two dozen nationwide injunctions in place blocking Mr. Trump’s policies, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service.
Still, the Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t mean they will instantly evaporate. Experts say the next step is for individual courts to apply the new precedent in their own cases. In some instances, the Justice Department will likely challenge existing nationwide injunctions to see if they need to be pared back under the Supreme Court’s new precedent.
Impact on Existing Trump Policies
Here are some of the policies that the Trump administration has tried to bring into effect, only to be blocked by nationwide injunctions that remain in force, for now:
-
A White House effort to require more stringent voter ID at the polls, including proof of citizenship, was blocked by judges in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts, who found that it was likely to violate laws against disenfranchisement. The requirements were imposed by a Trump administration executive order in March. One of the judges also blocked a new requirement that would require all mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day in order to be counted. The plaintiffs in the two cases are 19 states, and the League of United Latin American Citizens along with two other organizations, raising the possibility that the administration’s proposed voting requirements could apply in some states but not others.
-
The Trump administration’s attempt to freeze as much as $3 trillion in federal funding to the states so it could be reviewed for alignment with administration policies was blocked by judges in Washington and Rhode Island. The government has appealed both rulings. The plaintiffs in the two cases are 23 states and four nonprofits.
-
Judges in New Hampshire, Maryland and Washington all blocked an effort by the Education Department that demanded that public schools either eliminate programs promoting diversity and equity, or risk losing their share of roughly $75 billion in federal funding. The plaintiffs in the cases include the N.A.A.C.P. and the American Federation of Teachers.
-
Nearly $2 billion in congressionally appropriated foreign aid flowing through the State Department and U.S.A.I.D. was frozen by the Trump administration until a judge in Washington ordered the payments to continue. More than 2,000 payments for work already performed are still outstanding. The plaintiffs in the case include nonprofits that fight infectious diseases around the world. The judge’s existing order requires payments to a number of nonplaintiff organizations as well.
-
More than 25,000 children who face deportation could have entered immigration proceedings without lawyers, had a judge in California not blocked the administration’s attempt to cut off a contract that pays for their legal representation. The government has appealed the injunction. The plaintiffs in the case are a group of nonprofits that serve immigrants and migrants.
Nationwide injunctions aren’t set in stone. Often, they are preliminary orders. The judge can change them or remove them completely later on in a lawsuit. They can also be stayed or overturned by higher courts, on appeal.
President Trump’s second term had already seen a number of cases where higher courts, including the Supreme Court, intervened to lift broad injunctions imposed on the administration by district-court judges. Among the policies that higher courts reinstated, at least temporarily, are the revocation of legal status for nearly 350,000 Venezuelans, Mr. Trump’s unilateral imposition of tariffs on China and the Department of Government Efficiency’s accessing records of the Social Security Administration.
What This Means for the Courts
Even without nationwide injunctions, plaintiffs have a second mechanism through which they can attempt to stop the federal government in its tracks — class-action lawsuits. The justices cited class-action lawsuits as an avenue plaintiffs can still use to obtain broad rulings blocking potentially unlawful executive actions.
In class actions, a small number of plaintiffs ask a judge to make a ruling that would apply not only to them, but to others — potentially thousands — facing similar circumstances.
Class actions have succeeded in winning some broad rulings against the Trump administration in the district courts. Judges have used class-action rulings to stop the administration from moving certain I.C.E. detainees out of their districts; from publicly releasing information about F.B.I. agents who investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol; and from deporting undocumented immigrants to countries they have no connection to without extensive due process. The last ruling was in place for a month before being paused by the Supreme Court.
But class actions have limitations.
Judges must “certify” the class, using special rules that assess the group’s number and similarity of its members to one another, a sometimes high bar.
And even if they do so, other members of the class do not automatically benefit in the same way that they would from a nationwide injunction, which immediately blocks a government policy. Instead, they may have to find a lawyer and go before the judge and claim their due as a member of the class to receive its benefit.
Zach Montague, Dana Goldstein and Seamus Hughes contributed reporting.
The post How the Supreme Court’s Ruling Could Revive Some Contested Trump Policies appeared first on New York Times.
