In Trump v. Casa, Inc., et al., No. 24A884, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts lack authority to issue so-called “universal” (or “nationwide”) injunctions that extend beyond the case or controversy presented by the specific parties who are before them. In so doing, the Court will propel many litigants challenging federal statutes and policies to opt for Rule 23(b)(2) class actions in order to secure broad injunctive relief.

There has been substantial focus—both in legal circles and popular press—on the trend in recent presidential administrations (of both parties) of litigants seeking to fully enjoin enforcement of statutes and executive action without class certification. The practice has been the subject of criticism by members of Court and legal scholars, while others have argued that courts require the authority to prevent the executive branch from blatantly violating fundamental rights. The Court finally took up the issue this Term after a series of lower courts issued universal injunctions preventing implementation of Executive Order No. 14160, which sets forth a policy of not issuing or accepting citizenship documentation for certain children of undocumented persons.  None of those injunctions were issued in cases in which classes of persons affected by the Executive Order had been certified. Thus, the injunctions issued by the lower courts extended beyond the individual interests of parties actually before them. 

On June 27, a six-member majority of the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts lack equitable authority to issue universal injunctions and may instead only grant relief to the specific plaintiffs in a case. At the same time, the Court observed that class certification provides an avenue for courts to issue broader relief—but only to the extent a trial court first engages in a full Rule 23 analysis.  

This decision means that, in the coming weeks and months Rule 23 will be an increasing focus of much litigation challenging federal government actions.  Whether the result will be a material change in the relief ultimately granted – including on the birthright citizenship issue (which the Court did not address on the merits) – remains to be seen. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out in dissent, the specific cases before the Court likely could have been certified as class actions under Rule 23(b)(2), although the plaintiffs had not sought certification. Justice Alito, meanwhile, in a concurrence joined by Justice Thomas, warned that “Rule 23 may permit the certification of nationwide classes in some discrete scenarios. But district courts should not view today’s decision to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23. Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of ‘nationwide class relief,’ and today’s discussion will be of little more than minor academic interest.”

The bottom line is that post-Casa, litigants seeking to secure broad relief from federal statutes and policies will often need to first secure class certification. It may also be possible in some cases to secure broader relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. One strategy, recently deployed by a Covington team with co-counsel with ACLU and ACLU of Massachusetts in Orr v. Trump, et al., No. 1:25-cv-10313-JEK (D. Mass.), is to first seek a complete stay of agency action under the APA, and preliminary injunctive relief as to the named plaintiffs only. Then, if and as necessary, move to expand the preliminary injunction to the class simultaneously with moving for class certification. In other cases, particularly where plaintiffs lack APA claims or other independent avenues that would authorize broad injunctive relief, it may be expedient to seek class certification immediately upon filing.