In a decision with major implications for American law and government, the Supreme Court recently put a sharp check on the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The ruling, handed down in June 2025, didn’t ban these sweeping orders outright, but it made clear they should be used only in the rarest of circumstances. Here’s what happened and what it means for you.
The Basics: What Are Nationwide Injunctions?
A nationwide injunction is a court order that stops the federal government from enforcing a law, policy, or executive order anywhere in the United States, not just for the people who brought the lawsuit, but for everyone. Over the past several years, these injunctions have become a go-to tool for groups opposing presidential or federal agency actions, allowing a single judge to put the brakes on major policy changes across the entire country.
The Case That Sparked the Change
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA came in response to lawsuits challenging a Trump-era executive order on birthright citizenship. The lower courts had blocked the order nationwide, but the Supreme Court didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the policy itself. Instead, it focused on whether judges have the authority to issue such broad injunctions.
What the Court Decided
In Most Cases, Judges Should Only Grant Relief To The
Actual Plaintiffs In A Case, Not To Everyone In The Country.
The Court left open the possibility of a broader injunction if it’s absolutely necessary to provide “complete relief” to the plaintiffs, but this exception is expected to be very rare.
What Happens Now?
This decision means that federal judges can no longer routinely block federal policies nationwide. If you want to challenge a federal law or policy on behalf of a large group of people, you’ll probably need to file a class action lawsuit, a more complicated and time-consuming process than simply asking for a nationwide injunction. The ruling is seen as a win for the executive branch, which has long argued that nationwide injunctions give too much power to unelected judges. On the other hand, advocacy groups worry that it will be much harder to stop controversial federal policies quickly, potentially leaving some people without protection while cases wind their way through the courts.
The Bigger Picture
By Limiting Nationwide Injunctions, The Supreme Court
Has Shifted The Balance Away From The Courts
And Toward The Executive Branch.
While the door isn’t completely closed to broad injunctions, they’ll now be the exception, not the rule. Expect future legal battles to focus more on class actions and specific, case-by-case relief.
Bottom Line
The Supreme Court has made it much harder for federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This change will have a big impact on how quickly new federal policies can be challenged and stopped, and it’s likely to shape the way future presidents, judges, and advocates approach major legal fights.
Impact on IRS Layoffs
On March 25, 2005 we posted The IRS ‘Reinstated’ 7,000 Workers, But They Are Not Returning To Work where we discussed that the District Court determined that probationary employees are being rehired but then placed on administrative leave "en masse," the order said.
“This is not allowed by the preliminary injunction, for it would not restore the services the preliminary injunction intends to restore.” Both judges ordered that the agencies offer to reinstate any probationary employees who had improperly been terminated.
Neither order was a final decision in the case and the federal government will pay about 7,000 IRS probationary employees, who were laid off less than a month ago, not to work while lawsuits over layoffs wind their way through the court system, the agency said in an email.
Now it appears that under this Supreme Court ruling, the District Court injunction only applies to those individuals who are parties to the case and the remaining 7000 workers can be fired.
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243
Read more at: Tax Times blog