Contents

• Background on Nationwide Injunctions
• Identifying Nationwide Injunctions: Methodology
• Defining Nationwide Injunction
• Searching for Nationwide Injunctions
• Counting Nationwide Injunctions
• Analysis of Nationwide Injunctions
• Subject Matter of Nationwide Injunction Cases
• Geographic Distribution of Nationwide Injunction Cases
• Procedural Posture in Nationwide Injunction Cases
• Nationwide Injunction Cases on Appeal
• Considerations for Congress
• Number of Nationwide Injunctions
• Regulating Nationwide Injunction Cases by Subject Matter
• Nationwide Injunctions and Forum Shopping
• Substantive and Procedural Limits on Nationwide Injunctions
• Nationwide Injunctions and APA Litigation

Summary

In recent years, courts, stakeholders, legal commentators, and lawmakers have engaged in significant legal and policy debate related to nationwide injunctions. The term nationwide injunction is not a legal term of art and is not defined in any federal statute or majority decision of the Supreme Court. However, that term is used fairly consistently in lower court decisions and legal commentary. In those sources, a nationwide injunction is generally defined as an injunction against the government that prevents the government from implementing a challenged law, regulation, or other policy, in whole or in part, against all relevant persons and entities, whether or not such persons or entities are parties participating in the litigation.

Commentators broadly agree that nationwide injunctions as currently understood did not exist in the pre-Founding English courts of equity, that no nationwide injunctions issued in the early years of the American Republic, and that such injunctions have become more common in the past two decades. Several sources provide counts of nationwide injunctions. In a May 2019 address, then-Attorney General William Barr stated that federal courts "issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century." By contrast, as of February 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had identified 12 nationwide injunctions issued during the presidency of George W. Bush, 19 issued during Barack Obama's presidency, and 55 such injunctions issued against the first Trump Administration. The February 2020 DOJ numbers remained widely cited for years because there was limited public data on the issuance of nationwide injunctions. In April 2024, the Harvard Law Review published an article with counts of nationwide injunctions through 2023. With respect to the four most recent presidential Administrations, the article identified 6 nationwide injunctions issued under the George W. Bush Administration, 12 under the Obama Administration, 64 under the first Trump Administration, and 14 from the first three years of the Biden Administration.

This CRS report identifies and analyzes nationwide injunctions issued under the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration. For several reasons, it is not possible to provide a single definitive count of nationwide injunctions. Most significantly, nationwide injunction is not a legal term with a precise definition, and so counts may vary based on the particular definition used. In addition, there are practical challenges in searching for all nationwide injunction cases as well as methodological choices about how to count the injunctions that fit any given definition.

This report explains CRS's methodology for identifying nationwide injunction cases and includes tables listing the cases identified using that methodology. The report also analyzes the cases identified, surveying the primary subject matter at issue in each case, the geographic distribution of courts that issued nationwide injunctions, the procedural posture in nationwide injunction cases (that is, whether the injunctions at issue were temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, or permanent injunctions), and how nationwide injunctions have fared on appeal. The report concludes by discussing selected considerations for Congress related to nationwide injunctions. Specifically, it discusses changes in the number of nationwide injunctions issued over time, proposals that would regulate nationwide injunction cases by subject matter, the relationship between forum shopping and nationwide injunctions, proposed substantive and procedural reforms related to nationwide injunctions, and the role of nationwide injunctions under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In recent years, courts, stakeholders, legal commentators, and lawmakers have engaged in significant legal and policy debate related to nationwide injunctions.¹ The term nationwide injunction is not a legal term of art and is not defined in any federal statute or majority decision of the Supreme Court.² However, that term and related terms³ are used fairly consistently in lower court decisions and legal commentary. In those sources, a nationwide injunction is generally defined as an injunction against the government that prevents the government from implementing a challenged law, regulation, or other policy, in whole or in part, against all relevant persons and entities, whether or not such persons or entities are parties participating in the litigation.⁴

Commentators broadly agree that nationwide injunctions as currently understood did not exist in the pre-Founding English courts of equity, that no nationwide injunctions were issued in the early years of the American Republic, and that such injunctions have become more common in the past two decades.⁵ Several sources provide counts of nationwide injunctions. In a May 2019 address, then-Attorney General William Barr stated that federal courts "issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century."⁶ By contrast, as of February 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had identified 12 nationwide injunctions issued during the presidency of George W. Bush, 19 issued during Barack Obama's presidency, and 55 such injunctions issued against the Trump Administration.⁷ In April 2024, the Harvard Law Review published an article with counts of nationwide injunctions through 2023.⁸ With respect to the four most recent presidential Administrations, the article identified 6 nationwide injunctions issued under the George W. Bush Administration, 12 under the Obama Administration, 64 under the first Trump Administration, and 14 from the first three years of the Biden Administration.⁹

This CRS report provides background on nationwide injunctions¹⁰ and identifies and analyzes nationwide injunctions issued under the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration.¹¹ For several reasons, it is not possible to provide a single definitive count of nationwide injunctions. Most significantly, nationwide injunction is not a legal term with a precise definition, and so counts may vary based on the particular definition used. In addition, there are practical challenges in searching for all nationwide injunction cases as well as methodological choices about how to count the injunctions that fit any given definition. However, this report explains CRS's methodology for identifying nationwide injunctions¹² and includes tables listing the cases identified using that methodology.¹³ The report also analyzes the cases identified, surveying the primary subject matter at issue in each case,¹⁴ the geographic distribution of courts that issued nationwide injunctions,¹⁵ the procedural posture in nationwide injunction cases,¹⁶ and how nationwide injunctions have fared on appeal.¹⁷ The report concludes by discussing selected considerations for Congress related to nationwide injunctions. Specifically, it discusses changes in the number of nationwide injunctions issued over time,¹⁸ proposals that would regulate nationwide injunction cases by subject matter,¹⁹ the relationship between forum shopping and nationwide injunctions,²⁰ proposed substantive and procedural reforms related to nationwide injunctions,²¹ and the role of nationwide injunctions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).²²

Background on Nationwide Injunctions

An injunction is a form of equitable relief²³ by which a court either requires an entity to take a certain action or forbids an entity from taking a certain action.²⁴ A party that fails to comply with an injunction may be held in contempt and may face sanctions including fines or imprisonment.²⁵ As noted, a nationwide injunction is generally defined as an injunction against the government that prevents the government from implementing a challenged law, regulation, or other policy against all persons and entities, whether or not such persons or entities are parties participating in the litigation.²⁶ While the use of the word nationwide might suggest that the geographic reach of a court order is what defines a nationwide injunction, the defining feature of a nationwide injunction is not its geographic scope but rather the entities to which it applies.²⁷

Commentators disagree on the historical roots of nationwide injunctions and debate numerous legal issues surrounding modern judicial practice related to these injunctions.²⁸ Defenders of nationwide injunctions argue that the orders prevent widespread harm, reduce the burdens of litigation by eliminating the need for every person affected by a challenged policy to bring suit, and promote consistency and the rule of law by uniformly halting allegedly illegal government actions.²⁹ Some argue that nationwide injunctions are particularly appropriate in certain circumstances, including immigration litigation, environmental and civil rights cases, and challenges to agency actions under the APA.³⁰

Critics counter that nationwide injunctions undermine established litigation procedures by allowing challengers to circumvent the requirements for bringing a class action or by triggering fast-tracked litigation in which federal courts must evaluate a challenged policy based on a limited factual and legal record.³¹ Some contend that nationwide injunctions raise constitutional questions because they award relief to people who are not parties to the litigation and who may lack standing to seek relief in federal court.³² Others argue that nationwide injunctions may prevent the government from effectively implementing its policies or that they can create legal uncertainty as implementation of challenged government programs may stop and start as a case moves through each level of the federal courts.³³ In addition, some commentators assert that nationwide injunctions contribute to the politicization of the courts and erode judicial legitimacy.³⁴

The debate over nationwide injunctions does not split neatly along partisan lines.³⁵ High-profile policies of presidential Administrations from both major political parties have been delayed or permanently halted by nationwide injunctions.³⁶ Moreover, the question of whether a nationwide injunction should issue in any given case is distinct from questions including whether the challenged government action is legally permissible or advisable as a policy matter.³⁷

Supreme Court decisions lay out general tests for when courts should grant injunctive relief and impose some guidance on the proper scope of such relief.³⁸ Currently, however, no statute or Supreme Court majority decision lays out a specific test for when a nationwide injunction should issue. In the absence of binding legal authority, courts facing decisions about the scope of injunctive relief have drawn upon the foregoing policy arguments and the general legal standards that govern requests for injunctive relief, weighing the applicable factors on a case-by-case basis.³⁹ Applying those principles, federal courts at all levels have issued nationwide injunctions.⁴⁰

Identifying Nationwide Injunctions: Methodology

The purpose of this CRS report is to identify recent nationwide injunction cases and provide analysis of those cases and related considerations for Congress. However, it is not possible to produce a single definitive count of nationwide injunctions for several reasons. Specifically, there is some ambiguity to the term nationwide injunction. In addition, there are practical challenges in searching for nationwide injunction cases, and there are questions about how to count the injunctions that fit any given definition.

Defining Nationwide Injunction

Nationwide injunction is not a legal term of art. As noted, courts and commentators generally use the term to refer to an injunction against the government that prevents the government from implementing a challenged law, regulation, or other policy, in whole or in part, against all relevant persons and entities, including non-parties to the litigation.⁴¹ However, that definition is not universally accepted. For instance, some sources refer to court orders that bind private parties as nationwide injunctions.⁴² Even among those that limit discussion of nationwide injunctions to injunctions against the government, some use the term to refer only to injunctions that bind the federal government, while others discuss nationwide or, more often, universal injunctions against state laws or policies.⁴³ Moreover, courts occasionally issue injunctions that combine with previously entered injunctions from other courts to block a policy in its entirety⁴⁴ or enjoin policies nationwide except within selected jurisdictions where other courts are considering challenges to the same policy.⁴⁵ In those cases, enforcement of a policy may be completely enjoined, although no single court order accomplishes that result.

Courts and commentators also debate whether injunctions in class actions should count as nationwide injunctions.⁴⁶ Both class actions and nationwide injunctions may allow plaintiffs to seek judicial relief for persons not before the court.⁴⁷ However, unlike nationwide injunctions, class actions are subject to specific requirements that must be satisfied before a court can certify a class and award class-wide relief.⁴⁸

In addition, courts faced with an arguably unlawful government action may issue different forms of relief depending on the type of case and the status of litigation. These forms of relief are closely related but have different names and follow different procedures:

Temporary restraining order (TRO)—the most preliminary form of injunctive relief, a TRO serves to prevent imminent harm on a short-term basis while the court considers whether to enter a preliminary injunction. A court may enter a TRO without providing the party to be enjoined notice and an opportunity to respond.⁴⁹

Preliminary injunction (PI)—an injunction designed to preserve the status quo while a case remains pending. Before entering a PI, a court considers a motion from the party seeking the injunction and provides the party to be enjoined the opportunity to respond. Briefing on a motion for PI may be expedited when urgent action is required or when a TRO has been sought but the court wants to hear from both sides. The court may modify or dissolve the injunction during litigation.⁵⁰

Permanent injunction—an injunction that issues once the court has decided a case on the merits.⁵¹ Such an injunction applies indefinitely unless the court sets an expiration date, the issuing court or another court of competent jurisdiction modifies the injunction, or the injunction is overturned on appeal.⁵²

In a case involving review of agency action, a court may also stay a challenged action pending judicial review or vacate an action and remand it to the agency after holding it unlawful.⁵³ A stay or vacatur may have the same practical effect as an injunction, preventing the challenged regulation or policy from taking effect. However, a stay or vacatur is sometimes viewed as a less extreme remedy than an injunction because it renders the rule or policy itself ineffective rather than directly requiring the government to act or refrain from acting.⁵⁴ The government generally does not attempt to enforce policies that have been stayed or vacated,⁵⁵ but courts sometimes stay or vacate policies and also enjoin the relevant agencies from enforcing the policies.⁵⁶ Alternatively, if a court initially enters a stay or vacatur and the government nonetheless tries to enforce the policy, the court may later grant injunctive relief.⁵⁷

There is no one correct way to resolve the foregoing questions about what qualifies as a nationwide injunction. For purposes of this report, CRS has taken the following approach:

• Included only injunctions issued by federal courts;
• Included only injunctions against the federal government or federal officials, not injunctions that bind states, state officials, or private parties;
• Excluded class actions certified at the time of the nationwide injunction's issuance;⁵⁸
• Excluded injunctions that combine with one or more other injunctions to block policies in their entirety but that, standing alone, do not do so;
• Excluded injunctions that block policies in their entirety with the exception of limited carveouts to defer to other courts;
• Included all forms of equitable relief that bar the government from enforcing a policy, such as TROs, PIs, injunctions pending appeal, and permanent injunctions; and
• Excluded stays and vacatur of agency actions unless the agencies were also expressly enjoined from implementing the stayed or vacated actions.

This definition excludes some high-profile court decisions that were widely reported in the press as nationwide inunctions.⁵⁹ In some of those cases, the courts expressly considered whether to grant injunctive relief and instead chose to stay or vacate challenged government actions without entering an injunction.⁶⁰

Searching for Nationwide Injunctions

There is no way to automatically identify court orders granting nationwide injunctions. In some cases, courts issue orders explicitly stating that they apply "nationwide" or otherwise block challenged measures in their entirety.⁶¹ However, there is no standard language that courts must use when issuing nationwide injunctions, nor is there an applicable federal statute, procedural rule, or controlling Supreme Court case that courts routinely cite in such orders.⁶²

To produce the tables in this report, CRS searched federal cases in Lexis+ for the search terms (("nationwide" OR "nation-wide") w/3 injunction) for date ranges corresponding to President Trump's first term in office and President Biden's term in office.⁶³ CRS then manually reviewed results to find cases that fit the criteria outlined above. In addition, CRS reviewed news reports about nationwide injunctions from both Administrations and included cases that fit the criteria but did not show up in the Lexis+ searches. CRS cross-checked these results against the list of nationwide injunctions published in the Harvard Law Review, but, because the time frames and methodologies used to produce the two lists differ, there is not complete overlap between them.⁶⁴ Due to the lack of standardization in nationwide injunction cases, it is possible that there are other cases that fit this report's criteria for inclusion but were not identified via CRS's methodology.

Counting Nationwide Injunctions

Even after a working definition of nationwide injunction has been adopted and cases that fit the definition have been identified, there is still a question of how to count such injunctions. A single federal law or policy may be challenged in multiple cases, and courts may grant, deny, or modify injunctive relief at multiple phases in litigation. This means that there are several possible ways to count nationwide injunctions:

• By policy, such that any government action subject to at least one nationwide injunction counts once, regardless of whether it was universally enjoined by one court or multiple courts;
• By case, such that each case in which a nationwide injunction was issued at any phase of litigation counts once, regardless of whether the case involved multiple challenged laws or policies, whether multiple nationwide injunctions issued in the case, or whether any such injunctions were upheld, reversed, or modified on appeal; or
• By order, such that if a court initially issued a TRO against a challenged policy, then a PI, then a permanent injunction following litigation on the merits, the case would be counted three times.⁶⁵

For purposes of this report, unless otherwise specified, CRS counted nationwide injunctions by case.⁶⁶ Each case (or set of consolidated cases) in which at least one nationwide injunction was issued by a federal court at any level is included as a single entry in the tables.⁶⁷ Some federal laws, regulations, or policies were subject to nationwide injunctions in multiple cases and thus are included in the count more than once.⁶⁸ The tables provide subsequent history related to the nationwide injunctions in each case, indicating whether multiple nationwide injunctions issued in each case and noting relevant decisions on appeal.

CRS has divided the cases discussed in this report by presidential Administration, covering the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration.⁶⁹ CRS has identified nationwide injunctions by the President who was in office at the time the relevant order issued rather than the Administration that promulgated the enjoined policy. In almost all cases, the Administration that adopted a challenged policy was also the Administration enjoined from enforcing it.⁷⁰

Using the foregoing methodology, and subject to the noted caveats, CRS has identified 86 cases in which nationwide injunctions issued under the first Trump Administration⁷¹ and 28 cases in which nationwide injunctions issued under the Biden Administration.⁷² The nationwide injunction was initially issued by a federal district court in all but two of the listed cases, the exceptions being the two injunctions issued initially by federal appellate courts.⁷³

The lists of cases in the Appendix to this report serve to illustrate some key themes in federal court practice with respect to nationwide injunctions under the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration. However, for all the foregoing reasons, they should not be understood as definitive lists of every nationwide injunction issued against policies of each Administration.

Analysis of Nationwide Injunctions

The following sections provide analysis of selected trends in the nationwide injunctions issued under the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration based on the cases identified in the Appendix.

Subject Matter of Nationwide Injunction Cases

The charts below provide a breakdown by subject matter of nationwide injunction cases under the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration. CRS categorized cases by subject matter manually. While some cases raised multiple legal and policy issues and could potentially be classified in multiple subject areas,⁷⁴ CRS selected one issue area per case for ease of analysis.

Under both the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration, the most common subject matter of cases in which nationwide injunctions issued was immigration. Under the first Trump Administration, immigration cases accounted for 36 out of 86 nationwide injunction cases, or 41.9% of the total. In addition, 10 cases under the first Trump Administration, or 11.6%, involved disputes over federal funding that also implicated federal immigration policy. In those 10 cases, the legal issue presented concerned the allocation of federal funds, but the funds were to be allocated or withheld for purposes related to immigration enforcement.⁷⁵ Standing alone, those federal funding cases were the second-largest category under the Trump Administration. Combined, immigration cases and federal funding cases that implicated immigration policy accounted for more than half (53.5%) of all nationwide injunction cases under the first Trump Administration. Under the Biden Administration, immigration cases accounted for 8 out of 28 nationwide injunction cases, or 28.6%.

Health care was a common issue in nationwide injunction cases under both Administrations. Under the Trump Administration, health care was the third most common topic with nine cases, or 10.5% of the total. Under the Biden Administration, health care was tied as the second most common issue with four cases, or 14.3% of the total. (There were also four equal protection cases under the Biden Administration, three of which challenged a single program providing loan forgiveness for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers,⁷⁶ as well as four cases challenging federal policies related to student loans.)

One health care case from the Trump Administration and three from the Biden Administration were directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning that 4 of the 13 health care cases (30.8%) across both Administrations were related to COVID-19. Thus, even discounting COVID-19-related matters, health care was among the topics most commonly addressed by nationwide injunctions.

Geographic Distribution of Nationwide Injunction Cases

The tables and maps below show the geographic distribution of district courts that issued nationwide injunctions during the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration. Specifically, they show the number of district court cases in which nationwide injunctions issued in each state under the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration.⁷⁷ Under the Biden Administration, two nationwide injunctions were issued by circuit courts in the first instance after a district court denied a motion for a PI.⁷⁸ Those two cases are listed in Table A-1 in the Appendix but are not included in the tables or maps in this section.

Figure 2. Geographic Distribution of District Courts Issuing Nationwide Injunctions During the First Trump Administration

Source: CRS.

Figure 3. Geographic Distribution of District Courts Issuing Nationwide Injunction During the Biden Administration

Source: CRS.

During the first Trump Administration, 22 district courts in seventeen states and the District of Columbia issued nationwide injunctions. Federal courts in California issued nationwide injunctions in the largest number of cases—23 in total (20 of which proceeded in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California). The District of Columbia accounted for the second-highest number of cases (13), followed by New York (11), Maryland (9), and Washington (9). Courts in some other states issued nationwide injunctions in between one and four cases.

During the Biden Administration, 16 district courts in 13 states and the District of Columbia issued nationwide injunctions. In addition, as noted, two federal circuit courts of appeals issued nationwide injunctions in cases where a district court did not issue a nationwide injunction.⁷⁹ Federal courts in Texas issued nationwide injunctions in 10 cases, and district courts in California, Louisiana, and Virginia each issued nationwide injunctions in two cases. No other state's federal courts issued nationwide injunctions in more than one case under the Biden Administration.

Multiple factors may influence the geographic distribution of courts that issue nationwide injunctions. One key factor is forum selection by plaintiffs. When filing a civil suit, the plaintiff selects the court where the suit will initially proceed. Traditionally, the plaintiff is the "master of the forum" and may sue in the court of their choice so long as jurisdiction exists and the venue is appropriate, though defendants and courts may sometimes override the plaintiff's choice of forum.⁸⁰ Plaintiffs challenging government action may have significant choice in where to file suit, because many federal laws and policies affect people in multiple geographic locations.⁸¹ Plaintiffs sometimes seek out specific courts they believe are most likely to rule favorably, a practice known as forum shopping.⁸²

Some commentators and litigants believe that certain courts or judges are more likely to strike down certain federal policies (or the policies of a particular Administration) or enjoin such policies nationwide.⁸³ This perception may lead to challengers seeking out those courts or judges, giving them a greater opportunity to enter nationwide injunctions and in turn reinforcing the perception.⁸⁴

Factors other than forum shopping may also influence which courts issue nationwide injunctions. For instance, challenges to federal policies generally proceed in districts where one or more parties are located or where the events giving rise to the litigation occurred.⁸⁵ Not all federal policies affect persons nationwide, which may limit the judicial districts where venue is appropriate.⁸⁶ In some cases, federal statutes require certain matters to proceed in specific federal courts.⁸⁷ Thus, the fact that certain courts issued a relatively large number of nationwide injunctions does not necessarily mean that those courts are more likely than others to issue nationwide injunctions in any particular case.

As discussed further below, to the extent Congress is concerned with the geographic distribution of nationwide injunction cases, it could consider legislation that would channel some or all nationwide injunction cases to specific courts or randomize the assignment of these cases.⁸⁸

Procedural Posture in Nationwide Injunction Cases

Courts can enter injunctions, including nationwide injunctions, at multiple phases of litigation, either before or after full consideration of the merits of a case.⁸⁹ It is thus possible for multiple nationwide injunctions to issue in a single case. To illustrate, a court might enter a nationwide TRO to bar enforcement of a policy for a short time while the court considers a request for a PI.⁹⁰ It could then enter a nationwide PI to preserve the status quo pending litigation on the merits.⁹¹ If the challengers eventually prevail on the merits, the court might enter a nationwide permanent injunction against the policy. In the alternative, the court could decline to grant injunctive relief at any of the foregoing stages of litigation, or it could grant an injunction but decline to bar enforcement as to non-parties.

Unlike the tables in the other sections of the report, where nationwide injunctions are counted by case, in this section CRS has counted nationwide injunctions by court order. Because there are some cases in which more than one nationwide injunction was issued, the totals in this section are higher than the case totals in the Appendix and the other sections.

In the nationwide injunction cases CRS has identified, a significant majority involved nationwide injunctions issued before a final ruling on the merits: 77.9% of orders under the Trump Administration were either TROs or PIs. Under the Biden Administration, that total was 76.7%. By far the most common specific type of order was PIs, which accounted for 67.3% of nationwide injunction orders under President Trump and 66.7% under President Biden.

In some cases, courts issued multiple nationwide injunctions before full consideration of the merits. In some of these cases, the court first issued a nationwide TRO and later issued a PI.⁹² In others, the court issued a PI against one government policy, then later issued an additional PI against a separate but related policy.⁹³

CRS identified a relatively small number of cases in which courts issued nationwide permanent injunctions. A smaller subset of those cases involved a district court entering a nationwide PI followed by a nationwide permanent injunction.⁹⁴ There are several possible reasons for the relatively small number of nationwide permanent injunctions. One is that litigation in many nationwide injunction cases does not reach a final decision by a court on the merits of the matter.⁹⁵ This may be because the government settles the case or changes policy after an initial adverse ruling⁹⁶ or because events render the litigation moot before it works its way through the courts.⁹⁷ A nationwide TRO or PI may be reversed on appeal on grounds that leave a district court no discretion to enter a nationwide permanent injunction on remand.⁹⁸ Even when persons challenging a policy ultimately prevail on the merits, some final rulings vacate or otherwise invalidate government action without expressly enjoining the government.⁹⁹

As discussed further below, some commentators raise particular legal and policy concerns about nationwide injunctions issued before full consideration of the merits of a case, and some proposed reforms specifically target nationwide TROs and PIs.¹⁰⁰

Nationwide Injunction Cases on Appeal

Decisions of lower federal courts granting or denying nationwide injunctions are reviewable on appeal. With respect to district court decisions, an order granting or denying an injunction, including a nationwide injunction, is usually immediately appealable to the relevant federal circuit court.¹⁰¹ With respect to decisions of the federal appeals courts, a party may seek immediate Supreme Court review of an appeals court decision granting or denying injunctive relief, though the Supreme Court generally has discretion whether or not to consider those matters.¹⁰²

While court decisions granting or denying injunctive relief are generally appealable as a matter of law, as a practical matter, some decisions granting nationwide injunctions are not reviewed on appeal.¹⁰³ If an appellate court does review a decision granting a nationwide injunction, there are several ways it may rule on the case. One option is that the reviewing court may affirm or reverse on the merits of the case. Because success, or likelihood of success, on the merits is one factor relevant to the issuance of injunctive relief,¹⁰⁴ a holding that a party challenging government action has not prevailed or is not likely to prevail is grounds for reversal of a nationwide injunction. A reviewing court may also affirm or reverse specifically as to the propriety of issuing a nationwide injunction. If a case presents multiple legal issues, a reviewing court may affirm in part and reverse in part, either on the merits or on the question of injunctive relief. If a case is subject to review by both an appeals court and the Supreme Court, rulings may differ at different levels of review in terms of both their reasoning and their outcome.

It is challenging to reduce this complexity to something that can be easily quantified, and in doing so some nuance is necessarily lost. For purposes of this report, CRS has classified appellate dispositions in nationwide injunction cases into the following categories:

• No relevant appellate decision—cases where no appeal was filed and cases where an appeal was filed but an appellate court did not issue a decision that directly implicated the propriety of the nationwide injunction;
• Reversed on the merits—cases where a reviewing appellate court held that the party challenging a government action had not succeeded, or was not likely to succeed, on the merits of the challenge;¹⁰⁵
• Reversed nationwide injunction—cases where a reviewing appellate court held that the party challenging a government action had succeeded, or was likely to succeed, on the merits of the challenge, but a nationwide injunction was not warranted;
• Affirmed but narrowed nationwide injunction—cases where a reviewing appellate court affirmed a lower court order issuing a nationwide injunction but narrowed the scope of the injunction;¹⁰⁶ and
• Affirmed—cases where a reviewing appellate court affirmed a lower court order issuing a nationwide injunction.¹⁰⁷

CRS placed each case into one of the foregoing categories based on the ruling of the highest court to issue a relevant decision (i.e., either a federal circuit court or the Supreme Court in cases where the Court heard an appeal).¹⁰⁸

CRS omitted from this analysis district court decisions granting or denying stays of nationwide injunctions issued by the same judge¹⁰⁹ and appellate court decisions granting and denying stays pending appeal of nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts.¹¹⁰ Such stays of court decisions are distinct from stays of agency action pending judicial review.¹¹¹ As a practical matter, the grant or denial of a stay of a nationwide injunction can have significant implications for the parties to litigation and federal policy generally.¹¹² However, stay motions are preliminary by nature, and courts often grant or deny stays without full briefing, oral argument, or a written decision.¹¹³ This makes it difficult to evaluate courts' reasoning or draw conclusions from such orders. Thus, cases where the only appellate court decisions involved motions for a stay of a nationwide injunction are classified as cases with no relevant appellate decision.

The following tables identify the outcome of appeals in nationwide injunction cases under the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration.

In the majority of nationwide injunction cases under both the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration, CRS identified no relevant appellate decision. This was true for 48 cases under the Trump Administration, or 55.8% of all cases, and 18 cases under the Biden Administration, or 64.3%.

There are a number of reasons why a nationwide injunction case may not be reviewed on appeal. The government may elect not to appeal following an adverse ruling,¹¹⁴ or the case may become moot due to real world developments before an appellate decision issues.¹¹⁵ In some of the cases CRS identified, particularly cases under the Biden Administration, litigation remains pending as of March 2025, so it is possible that additional relevant appellate decisions could issue in the future.

The fact that a nationwide injunction has not been subject to substantive appellate review does not necessarily mean that the injunction remains in effect indefinitely. For example, a nationwide injunction may be stayed in full or in part pending appeal.¹¹⁶ Additionally, if a case becomes moot on appeal, appellate courts sometimes direct district courts to vacate their decisions as moot.¹¹⁷

Of the 38 cases under the first Trump Administration where CRS identified a relevant appellate decision, 15, or 39.5%, were affirmed. In some of the affirmances, the reviewing court expressly held that a nationwide injunction was appropriate.¹¹⁸ In other cases, the appellate court affirmed without expressly discussing the propriety of a nationwide injunction.¹¹⁹ In four of the affirmances, which are classified separately in Table 7 but included in the 39.5% noted above, an appellate court affirmed the nationwide injunction in part, narrowing its scope but leaving at least part of a challenged policy blocked.¹²⁰ Among the reversals, 17 cases (44.7% of the 38 cases with relevant appellate decisions) were reversed on the merits. The remaining six cases (15.8%) were reversed only as to the nationwide injunction, meaning that the appellate court found that the challenged policy was, or likely was, unlawful but limited the scope of injunctive relief to the plaintiffs.¹²¹

Of the 10 cases under the Biden Administration where CRS identified a relevant appellate decision, three, or 30.0%, were affirmed.¹²² Among the reversals, three (30.0% of the cases with a relevant appellate decision) were reversed on the merits,¹²³ and four (40.0%) were reversed only as to the scope of injunctive relief.¹²⁴ As noted, as of March 2025, appeals remain pending in a number of cases in which nationwide injunctions were issued under the Biden Administration.

Considerations for Congress

Congress has significant ability to legislate with respect to nationwide injunctions as part of its broad constitutional authority to regulate the federal courts.¹²⁵ The data in this CRS report may help inform the legal and policy debate around nationwide injunctions in several areas, though there are also some areas that may benefit from analysis beyond the scope of this report.

Number of Nationwide Injunctions

This CRS report builds on several other sources that have tried to identify and count nationwide injunctions. A February 2020 address by a DOJ official identified 12 nationwide injunctions issued during the presidency of George W. Bush, 19 issued during Barack Obama's presidency, and 55 against the Trump Administration up to that point.¹²⁶ The April 2024 Harvard Law Review article identified six nationwide injunctions issued under the George W. Bush Administration, 12 under the Obama Administration, 64 under the Trump Administration, and 14 from the first three years of the Biden Administration.¹²⁷ This report now identifies 86 nationwide injunction cases under the first Trump Administration and 28 under the Biden Administration. The numbers in each of these sources vary, likely due to differences in the methodologies used to identify and count nationwide injunctions. However, they all fit the same general trend: It appears that nationwide injunctions increased during each presidential Administration from George W. Bush to Donald Trump's first term in office. Under President Biden, the number of nationwide injunctions decreased significantly from the Trump Administration but remained higher than the total under any previous presidential Administration.¹²⁸

The reasons for the decrease in the frequency of nationwide injunctions during the Biden Administration is unclear. While the decrease might be due in part to the nature of the particular policies pursued by the Biden Administration and the legal challenges brought against them,¹²⁹ it might also be caused in part by more general shifts in how courts handle requests for universal relief. In a number of recent cases, courts considering requests for nationwide injunctions in challenges to agency action under the APA have instead elected to stay or vacate the challenged agency action.¹³⁰ Those cases are generally not included in CRS's count of nationwide injunctions but also have the effect of halting a challenged policy in its entirety.¹³¹ Additional study may be warranted on the extent to which courts are preventing the enforcement of federal policy through stays or vacatur rather than injunctions.¹³²

It remains to be seen how many nationwide injunctions will issue under the second Trump Administration. As of March 2025, multiple district courts had issued nationwide injunctions against policies of the second Trump Administration.¹³³ Additional data from the current Administration may help clarify any trends in the issuance of nationwide injunctions. As noted above, there is currently no way to automatically identify nationwide injunction cases.¹³⁴ If Congress enacted a statute or rule of procedure governing nationwide injunctions, observers might be able to identify nationwide injunctions by searching for cases that cite the statute or rule.¹³⁵ Congress could also direct the courts or a federal agency to provide reports to Congress on the issuance of nationwide injunctions.¹³⁶

Regulating Nationwide Injunction Cases by Subject Matter

Some discussion of nationwide injunctions focuses on whether non-party relief is appropriate in particular contexts such as immigration,¹³⁷ environmental regulation,¹³⁸ and certain civil rights cases, as all of these are areas where it may be difficult to tailor relief to the parties before the court.¹³⁹

The data in this report indicate that immigration cases make up a relatively large share of nationwide injunction cases. As noted above, immigration was the most common issue in nationwide injunction cases under both the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration.¹⁴⁰ Immigration cases and federal funding cases that implicated immigration policy collectively accounted for more than half of all nationwide injunction cases under the Trump Administration. Under the Biden Administration, immigration cases accounted for 28.6% of nationwide injunction cases. Policymakers may therefore wish to consider whether these cases present unique legal and policy considerations.

Some commentators contend that nationwide injunctions may be more likely to be appropriate in immigration cases because more limited injunctions may not afford complete relief to the parties.¹⁴¹ With respect to challenged policies that exclude foreign nationals, some assert that immigration restrictions may affect certain stakeholders in ways that make it difficult to target relief.¹⁴² For instance, a university may benefit from the academic, professional, and financial contributions of an indeterminate class of international students, faculty, and staff.¹⁴³ Immigration policies that bar individuals from entering the country may also create a large class of people who are affected by an allegedly illegal policy but unable as a practical matter to challenge it in court.¹⁴⁴ With respect to policies that allow foreign nationals to enter or remain in the country, because people can move freely within the United States once admitted, some courts and commentators assert that piecemeal injunctions of such immigration policies may afford no meaningful relief to states or other parties who seek to prevent illegal entry.¹⁴⁵ States may allege economic consequences from certain foreign nationals' exclusion from or continued presence within the United States and may contend that these harms warrant universal relief.¹⁴⁶ In 2023, the Supreme Court in United States v. Texas recognized constitutional limits to states' ability to challenge certain immigration policies, including changes in immigration enforcement priorities related to the arrest and removal of aliens who have committed immigration violations.¹⁴⁷

Some courts granting or affirming nationwide injunctions in this area have pointed to a provision of Article I of the Constitution that empowers Congress to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."¹⁴⁸ Some commentators disagree with that reasoning.¹⁴⁹ Some argue for reforms that would impose limits on nationwide injunctions specifically in the context of immigration cases.¹⁵⁰

With respect to the other specific categories of cases identified by commentators, environmental and civil rights cases did not make up a large proportion of nationwide injunction cases under the Trump and Biden Administrations. Congress could still consider targeted reforms to nationwide injunctions in those areas, but if trends from the past two Administrations continue, such reforms might affect a small number of cases.

Nationwide Injunctions and Forum Shopping

Forum shopping refers to the practice whereby some plaintiffs seek to litigate in a court that they believe is more likely to rule favorably on their claims.¹⁵¹ Forum shopping is not a new practice—parties have long sought possible advantages during litigation, including seeking to obtain a favorable decisionmaker to the extent possible.¹⁵² The phrase forum shopping may carry a negative connotation, but some commentators defend forum shopping or downplay concerns around it, noting that it may be difficult to draw the line between generally accepted litigation strategy and practices warranting concern.¹⁵³

In some cases, a plaintiff may attempt to select not only the court in which their claims proceed but also the specific judge who will hear the case, a practice sometimes called judge shopping.¹⁵⁴ The structure and composition of some federal judicial districts may facilitate judge shopping. A number of federal district courts are subdivided into geographic divisions, and some divisions have only one or two active judges, so a plaintiff who sues in one of those divisions has a high likelihood of being able to proceed before their judge of choice. In recent years, some observers have expressed concerns that litigants challenging government actions were filing suit in those divisions in an attempt to judge shop.¹⁵⁵

Forum shopping is relatively common in certain types of cases, including patent litigation and suits against the federal government.¹⁵⁶ While forum shopping is not limited to nationwide injunction cases, the possibility that a court may enter a nationwide injunction raises the stakes in forum selection. If a court blocks a policy with respect to the plaintiff only, the government may still be able to implement the policy with respect to most people. On the other hand, if a court blocks a law or policy in its entirety, the government must litigate the case, often on an emergency basis, before it can effectively pursue its policy goals.

Nationwide injunctions and forum shopping have featured in recent public discussion of perceived politicization of the federal courts. Concerns about politicization relate to forum shopping because some observers contend that many recent cases challenging high-profile policies of a presidential Administration from one major political party proceeded before judges appointed by Presidents from another party.¹⁵⁷ Some of those cases were filed in districts or divisions that offered plaintiffs a high chance of assignment to certain judges. The perception that parties can pick a certain court or judge and potentially secure a more favorable case outcome may increase the perception of politicization of the judiciary. This notion undermines the portrayal of judges as independent, nonpartisan actors who apply the law neutrally.¹⁵⁸

The data in this report appear to show a relationship between nationwide injunctions and forum shopping, though it is difficult to distinguish cause from effect. Under the first Trump Administration, district courts in California issued significantly more nationwide injunctions than did district courts in any other state. Under the Biden Administration, district courts in Texas issued a substantial plurality of nationwide injunctions.

The judiciary is traditionally viewed as the non-political branch of the federal government, and there are issues that come before the courts that cannot easily be mapped to partisan political divisions.¹⁵⁹ To the extent different judges approach cases differently, the jurisdiction in which a judge sits or the political party of the President who appointed the judge are not necessarily predictive of the judge's judicial philosophy, and CRS has not attempted to evaluate the ideology of judges who issued nationwide injunctions.¹⁶⁰ Moreover, as noted, many factors may influence where a suit proceeds, and the fact that certain courts issued a relatively large number of nationwide injunctions does not necessarily mean that those courts are more likely than others to issue nationwide injunctions in any particular case or that the courts are deciding cases on partisan grounds. Nonetheless, the geographic distribution of nationwide injunction cases may aggravate concerns about politicization of the courts.¹⁶¹

Multiple recent proposals have sought to address forum shopping generally or to curb the practice in nationwide injunction cases specifically. In March 2024, the Judicial Conference of the United States announced new guidance for district court case assignments designed to "strengthen[ ] the policy governing random case assignment, limiting the ability of litigants to effectively choose judges in certain cases by where they file a lawsuit."¹⁶² The guidance is not binding on district courts, and at least one district court that has featured prominently in discussion of forum shopping has declined to adopt it.¹⁶³ If Congress wished to make the Judicial Conference policy binding on federal district courts, change the scope of the policy to apply to a different class of cases, or impose a different rule for case assignments, it could do so via legislation.

Another option would be to cap the probability that plaintiffs filing in a certain division are assigned to any particular judge—for example, at one in two or one in three.¹⁶⁴ That change could be accomplished by restructuring existing judicial divisions to eliminate those with one or two active judges or by assigning some cases to judges in other divisions within a district. The courts or Congress could also tighten venue restrictions by requiring each case "to be connected to not just the district in which it is filed, but to the division in which it is filed, if the district is divided into divisions."¹⁶⁵ With respect to nationwide injunction cases specifically, some have proposed requiring all suits seeking nationwide injunctions to be brought in a particular forum, such as the federal courts in the District of Columbia.¹⁶⁶

Substantive and Procedural Limits on Nationwide Injunctions

Some commentators and lawmakers who oppose nationwide injunctions or think such injunctions issue too frequently have advocated for legislation that would limit nationwide injunctions or regulate how courts analyze requests for non-party relief. Some of these proposals take the form of substantive requirements that would govern whether or when nationwide injunctions could issue. Others would impose special litigation procedures in cases involving nationwide injunctions.

Substantively, there is currently no statute or Supreme Court case that lays out a specific test for when a nationwide injunction should issue, though there is Supreme Court caselaw setting general standards for the issuance of injunctive relief.¹⁶⁷ Some commentators have called on the courts or Congress to impose specific requirements before a nationwide injunction can issue.¹⁶⁸ Several federal appeals courts have sought to impose limits on nationwide injunctions.¹⁶⁹ Some legislative proposals have sought to ban nationwide injunctions at the district court level¹⁷⁰ or in all federal courts.¹⁷¹ Some legislators and commentators have advocated for limiting the scope of injunctive relief to a single judicial circuit or a single state.¹⁷²

Procedurally, commentators have raised concerns that nationwide injunctions may undermine the courts' ability to issue carefully considered decisions because they lead to fast-tracked emergency litigation on issues of major national importance.¹⁷³ Some contend that nationwide injunctions discourage percolation—the process by which multiple federal courts may consider the same legal issue and potentially reach different conclusions.¹⁷⁴ Some also raise the prospect of conflicting injunctions, where different courts impose incompatible requirements on the government, though others note that this is rare in practice.¹⁷⁵

Commentators and lawmakers have proposed a number of reforms designed to regulate, and usually to limit, nationwide injunctions. In addition to the proposals related to forum selection discussed above,¹⁷⁶ one proposal would send any request for a nationwide injunction to a three-judge district court rather than the usual single district judge.¹⁷⁷ One would require specialized hearings on requests for nationwide injunctions.¹⁷⁸ Another would provide for direct Supreme Court review of any nationwide injunction.¹⁷⁹

Lawmakers considering the foregoing proposals might look to the nationwide injunctions identified in this report to consider how proposed legislation might have applied to past cases. If such legislation were enacted in the future, the data in this report and other sources could also provide a benchmark to help determine whether the legislation changed the frequency, geographic distribution, procedural posture, or outcome on appeal of nationwide injunction cases.

One specific concern that some commentators have raised with respect to nationwide injunctions is that they can lead to uncertainty or disruption if challenged government policies stop and start at different levels of judicial review—for example, if a district court enjoins a policy, then an appeals court lifts the injunction, then the Supreme Court reimposes it.¹⁸⁰ Much of the possible instability in this area comes from emergency litigation around stays of court decisions pending appellate review, which are not included in this report's analysis. While stays may cause instability as some commentators posit, they can also serve to limit disruption. For instance, a court may enter an injunction but stay its own order in whole or in part pending appeal, leaving some or all of the challenged government policy in effect continuously during the litigation despite the injunction.¹⁸¹ This use of stays has led one commentator to argue for a presumption in favor of staying the effectiveness of a nationwide injunction or vacatur pending any appeal.¹⁸² Additional review would be required to determine the extent to which nationwide injunction litigation causes the government to halt and restart policies while litigation is pending.

Nationwide Injunctions and APA Litigation

Another area that has generated significant legal commentary in recent years is the role of nationwide injunctions in litigation under the APA.¹⁸³ The APA establishes the procedures that federal agencies use for rulemakings and adjudications and sets out procedures for how courts may review those agency actions.¹⁸⁴ One provision of the APA (5 U.S.C. § 705) authorizes a court reviewing agency action, "[o]n such conditions as may be required and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury," to "issue all necessary and appropriate process to postpone the effective date of an agency action or to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings."¹⁸⁵ Another provision (5 U.S.C. § 706) authorizes a court reviewing agency action to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions" if, among other things, it finds them to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."¹⁸⁶

Courts considering challenges to agency actions often rely on § 706 to vacate and set aside agency actions found to be unlawful.¹⁸⁷ While courts routinely invoke this authority to vacate challenged policies in their entirety,¹⁸⁸ some legal commentators debate whether § 706 is properly interpreted to authorize this type of universal vacatur of agency action or whether, when possible, relief should be tailored to the parties.¹⁸⁹ There is further debate among courts and commentators over what remedies are appropriate to preserve the status quo while an APA case remains pending. Some courts and commentators reason that nationwide injunctions are appropriate in APA cases because § 706 provides for vacatur of agency action in its entirety, not only as to parties who challenge the action.¹⁹⁰ Some read § 705 to authorize courts to stay agency action pending judicial review.¹⁹¹ Such a stay, essentially a temporary analog to vacatur under § 706, is sometimes viewed as a less extreme remedy than injunctive relief because a stay pauses the policy itself while an injunction directly requires the government to take or not take some action.¹⁹² Some courts have applied that reasoning and entered stays rather than TROs or PIs in APA cases.¹⁹³ On the other hand, courts sometimes stay agency actions pending judicial review and also enter TROs or PIs.¹⁹⁴

When a court stays agency action pending review under § 705 but does not also grant injunctive relief, such a ruling falls outside the definition of nationwide injunction used by this report.¹⁹⁵ However, a stay has the same practical effect as a nationwide injunction: It renders the challenged policy entirely unenforceable.¹⁹⁶ Some commentators have posited that courts may grant stays rather than injunctions in order to avoid controversy around nationwide injunctions.¹⁹⁷ Others have raised concerns that reforms targeting nationwide injunctions but not stays of agency action may not fully address policy issues related to nationwide injunctions.¹⁹⁸

Because this report did not attempt to identify all cases in which agency action was stayed under § 705 of the APA, additional research may be warranted on such cases to better understand the scope of the issue. In the meantime, lawmakers considering reforms related to nationwide injunctions may consider whether and how such reforms would also apply to stays under § 705. Congress could also consider targeted amendments to the APA.

Appendix. Tables of Nationwide Injunctions

The following tables contain lists of nationwide injunctions issued during the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration. CRS identified these cases using the methodology outlined above.¹⁹⁹ CRS has listed nationwide injunctions by case, meaning that some table entries include multiple court orders and some government actions appear in the table more than once if they were challenged in multiple cases.²⁰⁰ The Caption column in each table contains a citation to the first nationwide injunction that CRS identified in each case. Cases are listed in chronological order based on the date of issuance of the first decision cited. Any additional nationwide injunctions that issued in each case are included in the Notes column. The Notes column also briefly identifies the government action subject to each nationwide injunction. In some cases, only a part of a regulation, executive order, or other federal policy was enjoined, but in each case enforcement of the enjoined portion of the challenged action was barred as to all relevant persons or entities.

Footnotes