For most of American history, federal courts gave relief only to the parties before them. Over the past decade, district judges increasingly blocked federal policies nationwide, so a single judge anywhere in the country could halt a law or executive action for everyone. Administrations of both parties objected, and in 2025 the Supreme Court sharply limited the practice.
This guide explains how injunctions work, how universal injunctions rose, the CASA ruling, the routes to broad relief that remain, and the continuing debate.
An injunction is a form of equitable relief ordering a party to act or to stop acting. A temporary restraining order lasts days, a preliminary injunction preserves the status quo while a case proceeds, and a permanent injunction follows a final judgment. To win a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show a likelihood of success, irreparable harm, a favorable balance of harms, and that relief serves the public interest. Plaintiffs must also have standing, a concrete injury the court can remedy.
Critics of universal injunctions, including justices appointed by Presidents of both parties, argue that they let a single unelected judge set national policy, encourage forum shopping, and prevent the law from developing through multiple courts. Defenders argue that they are sometimes the only way to stop clearly unlawful policies that affect millions, that piecemeal relief creates confusion and unequal treatment, and that the government should not enforce a policy against people simply because they did not sue. The debate continues over class actions and APA vacatur as substitutes.
In March 2024 the Judicial Conference issued guidance encouraging district courts to assign cases seeking statewide or nationwide relief randomly across the district rather than to the judge in the division where they were filed. Some courts adopted the policy and others declined. In Congress, the House passed the No Rogue Rulings Act in April 2025 to limit district courts' injunctions to the parties, but it did not become law. Other proposals would route national challenges to a three-judge panel or a single court.
The Court left open several ways to obtain broad relief. Plaintiffs can bring class actions on behalf of everyone affected, and within weeks a federal court certified a nationwide class of children covered by the birthright citizenship order and blocked it again. States can sue to protect their residents, though how broad their relief may be is disputed. Courts may also set aside unlawful agency rules entirely under the Administrative Procedure Act, a remedy the CASA ruling did not address. In June 2026 the Court decided the birthright citizenship question itself in Trump v. Barbara, holding the order unconstitutional.
Courts issued few injunctions protecting nonparties until the 1960s, and they remained rare until the 2010s. District courts blocked Obama administration immigration programs, many first-term Trump administration policies including the travel ban, and Biden administration actions such as student loan forgiveness. Plaintiffs often filed in districts with a single judge or with judges they expected to be sympathetic, a practice critics called forum or judge shopping. In early 2025, courts issued dozens of universal injunctions against the second Trump administration within months.
After district courts blocked the January 2025 executive order on birthright citizenship nationwide, the administration asked the Supreme Court to limit the injunctions without deciding the order's legality. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled 6 to 3 that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority Congress gave federal courts in the Judiciary Act of 1789, since no comparable remedy existed in English or early American courts. Courts may give complete relief to the plaintiffs, but not to everyone. The dissenters warned that the ruling would let the government enforce unconstitutional policies against people who had not sued.
See how the Supreme Court handles emergency appeals in the shadow docket explained, find the trial courts in the federal courts map, or learn how executive actions are challenged in executive orders explained.