Washington — Last summer, amidst a barrage of legal obstacles confronting President Trump’s administration, the Supreme Court made a significant ruling that limited the capacity of federal judges to issue broad injunctions that halted the implementation of Trump’s policies nationwide.
This phenomenon of nationwide injunctions, which affected individuals beyond the immediate parties involved in a case, posed challenges not only to Trump’s initiatives but also to those of his successor, President Joe Biden. The Biden administration’s Justice Department had urged the Supreme Court to examine the validity of these extensive orders.
In the case Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court addressed this issue, concluding that such broad, nationwide injunctions likely exceeded the jurisdiction granted to federal courts by Congress.
The ruling from the conservative majority of the Supreme Court drew sharp criticism, particularly from the court’s liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the main dissent, cautioned that the ruling “renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson characterized the decision as an “existential threat to the rule of law.”
However, in the year following the Supreme Court’s restriction on the use of nationwide injunctions, the anticipated detrimental effects of the decision have not materialized as critics had feared. Instead, plaintiffs, navigating a more intricate legal landscape post-ruling, have sought alternative methods to obtain extensive relief from district courts assessing the legality of Trump’s policies.
“The landscape is complicated. There are numerous variables at play,” remarked David Marcus, a law professor at UCLA. “Since Trump v. CASA, we have seen significant success with plaintiffs utilizing the class-action option, as the justices anticipated. However, there have also been some interconnected legal developments. Comparing June 2026 to June 2025, it is evident that the power of federal district courts has been more constrained than it was a year ago.”
Class-action lawsuits emerged as a strategic option shortly after the Supreme Court’s June 2025 ruling on nationwide injunctions. Within hours of the decision, lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union initiated a class-action lawsuit against Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
Within a fortnight, Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire provisionally certified a class comprising all infants born after February 20, 2025, who would be affected by the president’s directive limiting birthright citizenship. The judge subsequently issued an order preventing the Trump administration from enforcing this directive against the group.
Consequently, due to Laplante’s ruling and another decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which upheld a nationwide injunction in a lawsuit brought by four states, Trump’s birthright citizenship plan never came into effect.
The New Hampshire case later reached the Supreme Court, which invalidated the president’s directive as unlawful last month.
“For many cases contesting Trump administration policies, class-action lawsuits have proven to be a viable, effective, and entirely appropriate avenue for securing broad relief similar to what plaintiffs achieved through nationwide injunctions prior to Trump v. CASA,” stated Marcus, who has advocated for cases that previously resulted in nationwide injunctions to proceed as class actions.
Such lawsuits have been initiated to challenge various immigration policies implemented by the president, including the cancellation of temporary deportation protections for immigrants from Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua, as well as the use of the wartime Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan migrants whom the administration claims are gang members.
In late December, a federal judge determined that the administration’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and nullified the decisions made by the Homeland Security secretary.
This law, which regulates the rulemaking process of federal agencies, has become a crucial tool for groups litigating against the Trump administration and pursuing broad relief. The Administrative Procedure Act empowers courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” deemed arbitrary, capricious, or exceeding authority, among other criteria.
In a concurring opinion regarding nationwide injunctions, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out the Administrative Procedure Act as a potential alternative for plaintiffs, suggesting they could request a court to “preliminarily ‘set aside’ a new agency rule.”
Following Kavanaugh’s guidance, plaintiffs have taken action. Recently, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled against the Trump administration’s policy imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas for skilled workers, deeming it illegal and ordering its removal. Judge Leo Sorokin reaffirmed that he would not “depart from the longstanding view that vacatur of an unlawful agency action is a proper remedy under the APA.”
Despite the success of organizations frequently opposing the Justice Department in court to halt administration policies broadly while their cases proceed, they have noted the challenges of navigating the legal environment following the CASA decision.
“The legal landscape is complicated. It demands more resources from plaintiffs and advocates challenging these governmental abuses and harmful policies, and it does risk inconsistent treatment across the country,” explained Lupe Aguirre, deputy director of U.S. litigation for the International Refugee Assistance Project. “Although the APA and class-action relief are distinct routes, not every court interprets them in the same manner.”
The Justice Department routinely contests requests for extensive relief, urging courts to limit their orders to the specific parties involved in a lawsuit.
