Supreme Court Limits Universal Injunctions Impacting Federal Policy Enforcement

The Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. marks a significant shift in public administration litigation by limiting the power of federal judges to issue universal injunctions, confining the effect of court rulings to specific districts. This decision means that federal agencies executing nationwide policies, such as those related to SNAP or Social Security, may face legal challenges that only halt actions in certain jurisdictions rather than across the entire country. The Trump Administration has committed to respecting Supreme Court decisions, suggesting adherence to constitutional interpretations despite the ruling's implications. This development aligns with the Unitary Executive Theory, which advocates for maximizing executive power and has influenced recent court decisions that adjust the balance between agency deference and judicial review. Meanwhile, various local lawsuits continue to be filed in Texas courts, reflecting ongoing legal activity at the state level. Broader national and international legal disputes in healthcare and pharmaceutical industries also persist, though they are unrelated to the changes in federal litigation and executive authority.