Nationwide injunction

In United States law, a nationwide injunction is injunctive relief in which a court binds the federal government even in its relations with nonparties. In their prototypical form, nationwide injunctions are used to restrict the federal government from enforcing a statute or regulation.
Nationwide injunctions have come into prominent use and controversy during the Obama and Trump administrations, when they have been used by federal judges to enjoin the enforcement of significant policies, including the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans policy and the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy.
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court limited, but did not eliminate, a court's ability to issue nationwide injunctions in the case, ''Trump v. CASA, Inc.''

History before the American founding

Professor Samuel Bray has said early equity practice included "nothing remotely like a national injunction", while a group of prominent legal historians more narrowly concluded that "no modern-style nationwide injunctions issued". Courts did have the equitable power to enjoin defendants with regard to the plaintiff, but typically not the world at large. In cases where multiple parties had a common claim against the same defendant, the British chancellor sometimes offered a remedy known as a "bill of peace." The bill of peace bound the defendant against that group of parties with a common claim, regardless of whether they were all parties in the case. For example, if several tenants brought a claim against a landlord that they shared in common with all tenants, then the court of equity might issue a remedy that applied to the landlord's relations with those tenants not before the court. This order only applied to the defendant's interactions with an identified group of similarly situated nonparties, rather than the entire world, and it depended on the group being small enough and enough actual claims being brought by members of the group.

History in the United States federal courts

First 175 years

For the first 175 years of the republic, courts typically did not enjoin defendants with respect to nonparties, especially if that defendant was the federal government. Some scholars have estimated that American federal courts issued a dozen nationwide injunctions during this time, while others have estimated that American federal courts issued zero nationwide injunctions during this time.
In the nineteenth century, courts occasionally enjoined a municipality or county from enforcing a challenged tax or ordinance against nonparties. This was considered an extension of the "bill of peace" because it resolved a common claim by a small and cohesive group. The Supreme Court in Frothingham v. Mellon said this type of suit was justified by the theory that citizens of a county or municipality have a relationship comparable to that of shareholders to a corporation.
One explanation for the lack of nationwide injunctions is that the federal government itself waived its sovereign immunity from suit in 1976, while another is that venue and personal jurisdiction rules for a long time restricted litigants from suing cabinet officers outside of Washington, D.C., when seeking injunctions.
Some cases from this period raised questions about the lawfulness of nationwide injunctions or closely related remedies.

Scott v. Donald — James Donald sued the state of South Carolina for confiscating his alcohol under a statute he argued violated the federal Constitution. In addition to damages, Donald asked the court to enjoin the state from enforcing the statute against anyone. Despite agreeing that the statute was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court held that "we are unable to wholly approve the decree entered in this case." The Court explained that "there may be others in like case with the plaintiff, and that such persons may be numerous, but such a state of facts is too conjectural to furnish a safe basis upon which a court of equity ought to grant an injunction."
Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan — In 1913, the Supreme Court temporarily granted an order "restraining the defendants. . . from enforcing or attempting to enforce the provisions of said statute, and particularly restraining them from denying to appellant and other newspaper publishers the privileges of the mail. . . ." Professor Mila Sohoni interpreted the Lewis Publishing order as an "injunction barring the enforcement of the new federal law against anyone until the merits had been decided." Professor Samuel Bray interpreted it as a matter of estoppel because the government had already promised to the court it would not enforce the provision against anyone during litigation.
Frothingham v. Mellon — Harriet Frothingham sued the federal government for spending money under the Maternity Act, which she argued exceeded the powers of the federal government. She asked the Supreme Court to enjoin the government from carrying out the provisions of this act with regard to her and nonparties alike. The Supreme Court held against her unanimously, reasoning that a Court could not provide such relief without "assum a position of authority over the governmental acts of another and co-equal department, an authority which plainly we do not possess."
New Deal challenges

After the federal courts held numerous acts of New Deal legislation unconstitutional, they did not issue nationwide injunctions. Sometimes over a thousand individual injunctions were granted with regard to a single provision, as each plaintiff brought suit to ensure that the statute could not apply to them.

Late 20th century

has written that nationwide injunctions "emerg for the first time in the 1960s and dramatically increas in popularity only very recently." Professor Samuel Bray traces "he mergence of ational njunctions" to the 1960s.
The practice may have begun in 1963, when a panel for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit conditionally enjoined the Secretary of Transportation from applying his challenged wage regulation to any parties, not merely the plaintiffs.
According to the Department of Justice, nationwide injunctions remained "exceedingly rare" for a few decades after 1963. However, in 1968, the Supreme Court in Flast v. Cohen noted in dicta and without condemnation that "injunctive relief sought by appellants. . . extends to any program that would have the unconstitutional features alleged in the complaint," rather than merely to those programs injuring the plaintiff. And in 1973, a district judge in New York granted a preliminary injunction against the Interstate Commerce Commission that would "affect the agency in the entire scope of its authority and jurisdiction."
Courts issued an average of 1.5 nationwide injunctions per year against the Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations. In 1987, the Ninth Circuit, upheld an injunction against the Secretary of Labor to enforce the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act within the entire forestry industry, reasoning that "the district court has the power to order nationwide relief where it is required." In 1998, the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction against the Army Corps of Engineers, preventing it from enforcing against anyone a rule it had promulgated under the Clean Water Act. It held that after finding an agency rule or regulation unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal court should ordinarily "vacate" the rule or regulation rather than merely hold it unlawful with respect to the plaintiffs.
According to the Department of Justice, federal courts issued 12 nationwide injunctions against the George W. Bush administration. Among the examples were a 2002 holding of Judge Charles B. Kornmann enjoining the Department of Agriculture from enforcing a rule promulgated under the Beef Promotion and Research Act and a 2004 holding of Judge Reggie Walton enjoining the federal government from enforcing a policy it established under the Endangered Species Act. Judge Walton reasoned that a nationwide injunction was appropriate "because the declaratory judgment alone is inadequate when a policy is found to be facially invalid."

Obama administration

According to the Department of Justice, federal courts issued 19 or 20 nationwide injunctions against the Obama administration, including many on high-profile legal and political issues. The Fifth Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction initially issued by Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas against the federal government's implementation of DAPA in United States v. Texas. Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the Obama administration from issuing its guidance that Title IX required institutions to allocate bathroom accessibility based on gender identity rather than biological sex. When the Department of Justice requested that Judge O'Connor narrow relief to the plaintiff states, he declined to do so. Judge Sam R. Cummings of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the Obama Administration from issuing a rule that would require employers to disclose certain activities with third parties related to dissuading labor unions. And Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the Central District of California held in 2010 that the federal government's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the Secretary of Defense from enforcing it.

First Trump administration

According to the Department of Justice, federal courts issued 20 nationwide injunctions against the first Trump Administration in its first year alone, and as of early 2020 had issued 55 such injunctions. Within three weeks of President Trump's inauguration, Judge James L. Robart of the Western District of Washington issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the administration from implementing its executive order restricting entry into the United States. The following month, Judge Derrick K. Watson of the District of Hawaii issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the administration from implementing an executive order amending its entry restrictions. In April 2017, Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the administration from restricting funding to "sanctuary cities." Judge Orrick reasoned that "where a law is unconstitutional on its face, and not simply in its application to certain plaintiffs, a nationwide injunction is appropriate." In December 2017, Judge Marsha J. Pechman issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the administration from enforcing its transgender military ban.
In early 2019, Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California issued a nationwide injunction preventing the Department of Commerce from asking census takers if they are United States citizens. In December 2019, Judge David Briones of the Western District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the administration from using certain funds to erect a border wall. Also in 2019, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security from implementing a rule regulating asylum eligibility. And multiple judges issued nationwide injunctions to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed one such injunction.