On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA that district courts typically lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions against federal policies. The decision redefines a longstanding strategy used by Republican attorneys general and interest groups who, over the past decade, have repeatedly turned to federal courts to block high-profile executive orders by Presidents Obama and Biden.
The CASA decision, which arose from litigation over Donald Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship, struck at the heart of how federal judges have intervened in national policymaking. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, held that equitable relief must generally be limited to named parties, unless a broader injunction is essential to fully remedy harm. This ruling narrows the legal scope under which Republicans had previously succeeded in halting expansive executive programs.
The ruling casts new light on the Republican legal strategy that relied heavily on broad injunctions—often from handpicked district courts—to block policies ranging from immigration to public health to environmental regulation.
One of the most visible examples was the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program. Announced by President Obama in November 2014, it aimed to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation. But by February 2015, a coalition of 26 Republican-led states secured a nationwide preliminary injunction from Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas. The injunction was upheld by the Fifth Circuit and left in place when the Supreme Court deadlocked 4–4 in June 2016.
The use of broad judicial relief intensified during President Biden’s term. Republican-led states and organizations launched dozens of suits against key executive initiatives:
In 2021, federal courts enjoined Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates for federal contractors and employees. The Fifth Circuit upheld the block in March 2023. The mandate never took effect nationwide.
In July 2024, a Texas judge granted a nationwide injunction against a Biden administration healthcare rule that barred discrimination based on gender identity. GOP-led states argued the rule exceeded the scope of statutory authority under the Affordable Care Act.
In April 2025, another Texas court blocked a Biden rule requiring minimum nurse staffing levels in nursing homes. Plaintiffs—primarily red-state officials and private eldercare operators—claimed the rule imposed costly burdens without congressional authorization.
Student debt relief, one of Biden’s signature initiatives, was similarly challenged. Republican attorneys general sued to block the debt cancellation program unveiled in 2022. A federal appeals court extended a freeze on the plan in August 2024. The Supreme Court declined to revive the program.
Republicans also challenged Biden’s 2021 executive order promoting voter registration access through federal agencies. Missouri and Kansas sued to stop its implementation, arguing it violated the Elections Clause. The request for a preliminary injunction was denied, but litigation remains active.
This pattern of litigation mirrors earlier efforts during the Trump administration, when Democratic states sought to block immigration restrictions and environmental deregulations. But under Obama and Biden, Republicans spearheaded an aggressive campaign of legal containment, often seeking national halts through sympathetic federal judges.
The strategy’s future is now uncertain. CASA doesn’t retroactively overturn prior injunctions, but it casts doubt on whether such sweeping relief can be issued moving forward. Already, legal observers expect plaintiffs to pivot toward class-action lawsuits or multi-jurisdictional filings to achieve similar national impact without violating CASA’s new standard.