Injunctions, Executive Orders, and the Supreme Court
Federal employee unions have responded to changes to the federal civil service system implemented by President Trump by filing lawsuits and seeking injunctions against these new policies. Some of these legal challenges filed by federal employee unions have resulted in nationwide preliminary injunctions issued by U.S. district courts.
There are two examples of recent cases that have resulted in injunctions being issued.
Coalition Lawsuit (April 2025): A group of six major unions—including AFGE, AFSCME, NAGE-SEIU, NFFE-IAM, NNU, and SEIU—filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s March 27 executive order that revoked collective bargaining rights for nearly a million federal workers. On June 25, 2025, Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California issued a nationwide injunction, halting enforcement of the order across 21 federal agencies.
AFSA Lawsuit (May 2025): The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) successfully challenged a section of the same executive order that targeted the State Department and USAID. On May 14, 2025, a district court granted a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of that section, citing overreach and retaliation concerns.
The practice of numerous district courts issuing decisions that impact the entire country on a variety of national issues has created concerns. As expected, the issue has worked its way to the US Supreme Court.
It is not a surprise that this approach has resulted in a Supreme Court decision that will impact how these cases are handled.
In Trump v. CASA, Inc., issued on June 27, 2025, the Court issued a decision that significantly curtails the authority of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions.
Here’s how this ruling impacts existing and future cases involving such injunctions.
Decision Restricts Universal Injunctions
The Court held that universal injunctions (i.e., orders blocking enforcement of policies beyond the parties to a lawsuit) exceed federal courts’ equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court made this decision based on several reasons:
- They lack historical precedent in founding-era equity practice.
- They circumvent the procedural safeguards of class actions (Rule 23), which require numerosity, commonality, and adequate representation.
- Relief must be limited to providing “complete relief” solely to plaintiffs with standing, not non-parties.
Immediate Impact on Existing Nationwide Injunctions
The new decision from the Supreme Court will impact existing national injunctions that have been issued. This will impact cases that have originated from district courts that have issued nationwide injunctions on executive orders affecting agencies and federal employees.
Injunctions blocking federal policies (e.g., agency actions under executive orders) must be scaled back to cover only the plaintiffs in each case, not all similarly affected individuals. Therefore, if a district court bars enforcement of an executive order nationwide, it must presumably modify the injunction to protect only those individuals or organizations that sued.
Cases with overly broad injunctions will likely be returned to district courts for refinement. The Supreme Court explicitly directed lower courts to reassess whether narrower relief suffices.
The refinement will presumably mean the district courts must ensure injunctions are “no broader than necessary to provide complete relief” to plaintiffs with proven standing.
And, in a finding that will likely have repercussions in other cases, the Supreme Court cited “Irreparable Harm to Government”. The Court affirmed universal injunctions cause “irreparable harm” to the government because they intrude on the ability to exercise the executive function of the executive branch of government. As noted in the decision:
The question before us is whether the Government is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the District Courts’ entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act. The answer to that question is yes.
The practical impact of this is that an agency may resume enforcing the executive order against those who were not a party to the case while the litigation continues meandering through the judicial system.
Future Implications
Here is a quick summary of the implications of this new Supreme Court decision.
- Reduced Use of Sweeping Injunctions: District courts can no longer issue injunctions benefiting non-parties. This ends the practice of single-judge rulings halting federal policies nationwide.
- Shift to Class Actions: Plaintiffs seeking broad relief must use Rule 23 class-action mechanisms, which require rigorous procedural checks.
- Targeted Litigation: Challenges to federal policies will focus on plaintiff-specific harms, potentially leading to fragmented outcomes across jurisdictions. In effect, the issue is more likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
Summary
This new decision from the Supreme Court restricts judicial power to issue nationwide injunctions, emphasizing that equitable relief must be tailored to the specific parties. Existing injunctions against federal agencies will be scaled back through district court refinements, while future challenges must align with traditional equity principles or class-action rules.
The decision reinforces separation of powers by limiting courts’ ability to impose universal constraints on executive actions.
