Supreme Court decision could impact lawsuits on Biden regulations

CECU

June 30, 2025
This morning the Supreme Court published its opinion in Trump v. Casa holding that universal injunctions (sometimes known as nationwide injunctions) go beyond the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts and that as a result the universal injunctions entered against Trump’s Executive Order on birthright citizenship must be limited so they only extend to the point necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs that filed the three lawsuits against the EO. The Supreme Court did not decide how broad the injunctions would need to be in order to provide complete relief to the states that have sued against the EO but instead returned the cases to the lower courts to decide that issue first.
Although the opinion is a ruling against universal injunctions, it remains unclear how the opinion will impact existing litigation challenging federal regulations under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) such as the CCST lawsuit against the Biden Borrower Defense to Repayment Rule, the lawsuits against the Biden Gainful Employment Rule, and the lawsuits against the Biden Bare Minimum Rule. In footnote 10 of the Casa opinion the Supreme Court states, “Nothing we say today resolves the distinct question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action.” The Court then cites 5 U. S. C. §706(2) from the APA, which authorizes courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action.” This clear statement makes it unlikely that the federal government will be able to immediately restrict the reach of any existing injunctions in APA cases (including the preliminary injunction against the Biden BDR Rule from the CCST case or the preliminary injunction against the Biden Bare Minimum Rule from the Cortiva case) based solely on today’s Casa opinion.

CONTINUE READING