In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed a foundational principle of constitutional law: that federal courts are empowered to resolve disputes between parties, not to dictate national policy from the bench. Specifically, the Court ruled that nationwide judicial injunctions—where a single district judge blocks a federal policy for the entire country—are not constitutionally authorized under Article III.

While this may sound like a radical shift, it’s actually a return to the traditional boundaries of judicial power as envisioned by the Founders and practiced for most of American history.

A judge exercising restraint. Image created using ChatGPT

What Are Nationwide Injunctions?

A nationwide, or “universal,” injunction is a court order that stops the federal government from enforcing a law or policy not just for the plaintiff, but for everyone—nationwide. These types of injunctions gained popularity in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, especially in high-profile cases involving immigration, environmental policy, healthcare, and executive orders.

What began as rare judicial exceptions became, in recent years, almost routine: a single district judge in one jurisdiction halting federal policy across all fifty states before any appellate court could weigh in.

The Court’s Rationale

The Supreme Court has grown increasingly skeptical of this trend. In decisions like United States v. Texas, the majority emphasized that Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding actual “cases or controversies.” That means issuing relief for the parties before the court, not issuing sweeping national edicts.

Nationwide injunctions raise serious constitutional and practical concerns:

Does This Mean the People Lose Protection?

Not at all. The judiciary remains a powerful check on executive overreach—but within the guardrails of constitutional authority.

Here’s how:

A Return to Constitutional Norms

For most of American history, courts did not presume the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. Judges resolved disputes between parties, and the legal system allowed change to spread through precedent, not judicial fiat.

The modern expansion of nationwide injunctions was, in many ways, a symptom of political polarization—courts stepping in to block controversial policies immediately and broadly. The Supreme Court’s recent decisions reflect a desire to restore judicial modesty and respect for the separation of powers.

Conclusion

By rejecting the routine use of nationwide injunctions, the Court is not weakening judicial review—it is reaffirming the limits that keep our constitutional system balanced. The courts remain guardians of individual rights, but they are not national referees for every political controversy. The protection of the people is still intact—but it now operates through a more deliberate and constitutionally faithful process.