07-08-2025
The Supreme Court held that federal district courts cannot grant universal injunctions that impact laws nationwide. Before this decision, lower federal courts issued nationwide injunctions to bar the enforcement of laws they found unconstitutional. The government could not enforce these laws in any jurisdiction while the injunctions were in place. Courts issued injunctions for various employment actions, including the FTC’s ban on noncompete agreements, COVID-19 vaccine mandates, changes to eligibility for work visas, and the NLRB’s union elections and joint employer rules.
In Trump v. CASA, federal district courts in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington had issued universal preliminary injunctions for an executive order ending birthright citizenship. The order applied to babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were either illegally in the country or visiting temporarily and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident. The Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of the executive order in its decision.
One possible exception was left open in the court’s opinion. Class action lawsuits brought on behalf of similarly situated individuals could prevail on injunctions that apply to all class members. It is unclear how enforcement of federal law can be reliably enforced against possible injunctions for a class of parties or groups. The Court’s ruling means that federal laws deemed unconstitutional in some states will be enforceable in others. Employers will have to be vigilant to ensure compliance across varying jurisdictions where employees are located and where court challenges are being made.