SCOTUS nixes universal injunctions

On its face, this case was about an executive order ending "birthright citizenship." But, Friday's decision in Trump v. CASA (Justice Barrett for the majority) was actually about the authority of district courts to grant "universal injunctions" - "the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone."

From a high-level policy perspective, there are some solid arguments for and against these nationwide injunctions:

• On the one hand, if the executive branch is doing something illegal - violating constitutional rights or exceeding the scope of its federal legislative or constitutional authority - why would a court not be able to stop it from breaking the law everywhere? It's convenient. It creates uniformity.

• On the other hand, why should one district judge - who is one of several district judges in a court that only has jurisdiction over one state (and often, only a small part of one state) - determine the law and executive branch power for the entire country? It effectively gives a district judge with very limited jurisdiction a veto power over the entire executive branch. Plus, there's forum shopping.  

Justice Barrett

However, the Supreme Court determines what the law is and not what it ought to be. "The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions." Long story, short: The Court looked at the equitable powers of courts when the Judiciary Act was enacted and concluded that universal injunctions were not authorized and therefore impermissible. Instead, injunctions may not be "broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."

Now, you may be asking how this relates to employment law. Remember these?

• Pres. Obama's increase to the minimum salary threshold for the white collar exemptions to the FLSA overtime requirements;
• Pres. Biden's FTC rule effectively banning (most) noncompetes; and
• Pres. Biden's increase to the minimum salary threshold for the white collar exemptions to the FLSA overtime requirements.

All of them were initially stopped by district court rulings.  

The Future

A couple of notes about the ruling:

• The Court only ruled on whether the Judiciary Act authorized federal district courts to issue universal injunctions. It did not decide whether Article III of the Constitution permits them. In other words, Congress could amend the Judiciary Act to allow universal injunctions. One, I don't see that happening anytime soon. And, two, that would then require analysis of the Article III question, and I don't know how SCOTUS would rule on that. 
• District courts can still afford injunctive relief to "plaintiffs with standing" - in a concurring opinion, Justice Alito notes, "Lax enforcement of the requirements for third-party standing and class certification would create a potentially significant loophole to today’s decision.
• Worth noting that SCOTUS, in a footnote, stated "Nothing we say today resolves the distinct question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action. See 5 U. S. C. §706(2) (authorizing courts to 'hold unlawful and set aside agency action')."