Supreme Court Restricts Nationwide Injunctions in Trump v. CASA, Expanding Executive Power

In Trump v. CASA de Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to significantly restrict the ability of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions blocking executive branch policies. The decision represents a major expansion of presidential power and reduction in judicial checks on executive overreach.

The ruling holds that district courts may generally only provide relief to the specific plaintiffs before them, rather than blocking policies nationwide. This means the administration can continue implementing contested policies in most of the country even when courts find them unlawful in specific cases.

The practical effect is to require challengers to file lawsuits in every jurisdiction to block illegal policies—an enormous resource burden that advantages the federal government. A single favorable ruling in one circuit can now allow policy implementation across most of the country.

Critics argued the ruling fundamentally undermines the rule of law by allowing the executive branch to enforce policies that courts have found illegal, simply by continuing enforcement against non-parties. The decision particularly benefits administrations pursuing aggressive, legally questionable policies—providing time for implementation before nationwide legal challenges can succeed.

The ruling explicitly overturned the approach that allowed single district courts to halt Trump policies during his first term, a result the conservative majority had long sought.