New England Biz Law Update
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion in Trump v. CASA Inc., limited federal district courts’ ability to issue universal injunctions to restrain government activity. Although the CASA case related to President Trump’s Executive Order purporting to end “birthright citizenship,” which the plaintiffs claim is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court’s decision applies far more broadly.
Even so, certain alternative avenues remain for parties to seek injunctive relief protecting non-parties where appropriate, including one option that a Judge in the District of New Hampshire recently used in this manner. Practitioners looking to challenge government action need to be aware of this rapidly changing landscape and their potential remaining options.
In CASA, the Supreme Court held that universal injunctions purporting to restrict government action beyond the parties to a particular case “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts” under the Judiciary Act of 1789. According to the decision, a federal court may hold that a statute or executive order cannot be applied to plaintiffs with standing in that particular lawsuit, but normally may not extend the relief to additional individuals.
Although this ruling makes securing broad relief more time-consuming and complex, the Supreme Court did leave two avenues open to lawyers and parties seeking a more wide-ranging injunction.
First, plaintiffs may pursue broad relief that applies to unidentified parties by bringing a class action suit under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court explained that a Court may restrict the government’s conduct towards a large group, including many individuals or entities not directly before the Court, in this manner. The Court noted, however, that plaintiffs may not circumvent that Rule’s procedural requirements by asking a judge in a single case with identified parties to award relief to others not before the court.
Under Rule 23(a), members of a class may sue on behalf of all members if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable, (2) the class has common questions of law or fact, (3) the representative party’s claims or defenses are typical of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly protect the interests of the class. Where appropriate, this remains a pathway for counsel and parties to seek broad relief. In fact, just last week, Judge Joseph Laplante of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire entered a new injunction in a class action lawsuit on behalf of plaintiffs impacted by the same birthright citizenship Executive Order at issue in Casa, which prohibits the government from enforcing that Order.
Second, the Court left open the possibility that states themselves may sometimes be entitled to injunctions prohibiting the government from enforcing a law or policy on non-parties, if the law or policy in question would cause significant administrative or other harms to the states themselves. The Court’s Opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, explained these arguments, but did not take them up.
Although it did not fully delineate the final scope of district courts’ universal injunctive power, the Supreme Court’s holding in Trump v. CASA Inc. has clearly limited it. But, although the Court shut the door on district courts’ general power to issue universal injunctive relief, it left open two windows, giving plaintiffs who claim to be wronged by government action two possible avenues of obtaining broad relief beyond the parties to a particular case. Going forward, practitioners representing clients looking to challenge such perceived government overreach may need to determine whether a class action under Rule 23 is viable and/or whether they can involve their state as a party.
Aaron Rosenberg is a Litigation Shareholder at Sheehan Phinney. Based in the Boston office, Aaron handles complex business and commercial litigation matters.
Gracie is a Summer Associate at Sheehan Phinney and a Rising 3L student at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law.
