Which courts have issued nationwide injunctions against Trump executive orders and what legal standards did they apply?
Executive summary
Federal district courts across the country issued a wave of nationwide or “universal” injunctions blocking multiple Trump executive orders in 2025, including several high‑profile preliminary injunctions that barred enforcement against all persons nationwide (for example, three district judges issuing universal preliminary injunctions against the birthright‑citizenship order) [1]. Those district courts relied on traditional equitable‑injunctive principles and, in many cases, Administrative Procedure Act (APA) reasoning and class‑action mechanisms to justify relief that reached beyond the parties before them — a practice the U.S. Supreme Court sharply curtailed in Trump v. CASA, which concluded that district courts lack authority to issue universal injunctions in the open‑ended form they had widely used [2] [3] [4].
1. Which courts issued nationwide injunctions: district courts across multiple districts and some appellate stays
From the start of the administration several federal district judges issued injunctions described explicitly as nationwide or “universal,” blocking enforcement of challenged executive orders against everyone rather than only the named plaintiffs; the birthright‑citizenship order, for example, was met with multiple universal preliminary injunctions issued by three separate district judges [1] [5]. More broadly, Congress’s research arm and litigation trackers documented that federal courts “at all levels” — but especially district courts — had issued nationwide injunctions in many challenges to Trump administration actions [2] [6]. Those district orders were then subject to appellate proceedings and occasional stays by courts of appeals or the Supreme Court while questions about scope and authority proceeded [4] [3].
2. Representative judges and cases that produced nationwide relief
Legal trackers and reporting catalogued dozens of injunctions in 2025 — one press analysis estimated about 35 nationwide injunctions against various Trump executive actions before the Supreme Court intervened in late June 2025 [7] [6]. Specific district judges who granted broad preliminary relief in labor and personnel disputes included Judge Susan Illston and Judge William Alsup, among others, whose orders enjoined administration personnel changes and layoffs pending fuller review [8]. Those district decisions often served as the flashpoint for appeals and for consolidation at the high court in cases such as the consolidated challenges to the Birthright Citizenship Executive Order that culminated in Trump v. CASA [8] [4].
3. Legal standards district courts invoked to justify nationwide relief
Lower courts grounded nationwide injunctions in the traditional four‑factor test for preliminary injunctive relief — likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest — applied in the context of constitutional claims, APA challenges, and requests for class relief [2]. Courts sometimes viewed “complete relief” for states, organizations, or putative classes as requiring a nationwide remedy when a policy by its nature affected people across the country, and they framed injunctions as necessary to prevent widespread irreparable harm [1] [9]. Many opinions cited equitable doctrines and the practical realities that not all injured parties can bring suit quickly; where plaintiffs sought class certification under Rule 23 or sued under the APA, courts treated universal stays or vacaturs as functionally similar to nationwide injunctions [2] [4].
4. How the Supreme Court changed the standards in CASA and what remains
In Trump v. CASA the Supreme Court held that district courts exceed their authority when issuing open‑ended “universal” injunctions and instructed lower courts to limit relief to plaintiffs or to pursue class certification if broader relief is sought, signaling that nationwide injunctions cannot be the default remedy [3] [10]. The Court left intact other tools: it recognized that requests under the APA and properly certified class actions can still produce nationwide effects in practice, and it did not declare nationwide relief categorically unconstitutional but framed the problem as one of statutory and equitable limits [4] [2]. Legal scholars and advocacy groups warned that CASA reshapes, rather than ends, nationwide remedies — pushing challengers toward Rule 23 class suits, APA mechanisms, or multiple district suits to achieve broad protections [11] [12].
5. Practical fallout: litigation strategy and democratic stakes
The flurry of district‑court nationwide injunctions forced rapid appeals and a Supreme Court response that narrowed the remedy but left open doctrinal gaps; trackers show a large volume of blocked government actions and ongoing litigation where parties must now adapt their strategies to CASA’s constraints [6] [13]. Observers from across the spectrum warned of tradeoffs: nationwide injunctions offered quick, uniform protection against sweeping executive action, while critics and the Supreme Court emphasized the risk of one judge’s order dictating national policy and urged more structured remedies like class actions or multi‑forum litigation [5] [10].