Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions

In a case that could have far-reaching consequences for NAHB members, the Supreme Court today issued a 6-3 ruling that would limit the use of nationwide universal injunctions. A universal injunction stops the defendant from taking an action against anyone, anywhere.

The case, known as Trump v. Casa, has been called the “birthright citizenship” case.

NAHB filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case in support of universal injunctions. We took no position in the underlying case that deals with birthright citizenship. When associations like NAHB bring litigation against the government, they do so on behalf of their members. In filing the amicus brief, NAHB urged the Supreme Court to continue to allow associations to initiate litigation that obtains relief for their members.

However, in issuing their ruling, the justices voted 6-3 to limit the lower-courts’ universal injunctions to each plaintiff with standing to sue unless the plaintiff went through the process of seeking to convert a suit into a class action.

The question the Supreme Court acted on is whether federal district courts can issue orders against the government that provide relief to people who are not parties to the case. In other words, if the government is acting illegally, can a district court stop the government action only with respect to the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, or can the court simply tell the government to stop the illegal conduct?

In the majority opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, she said: “Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.’ ... But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

In our brief in favor of nationwide injunctions, NAHB explained that when associations like ours bring lawsuits against the government, we do so on behalf of our members, and that the relief we obtain must go to all of our members — no matter where in the country they are located — in other words, nationwide. 

Although NAHB has sought injunctions in the past, a majority of our federal litigation is based on the Administrative Procedure Act. The Supreme Court did not take any position on whether courts can vacate agency action under that statute.