On Thursday, a federal judge serving in the Western District of Washington issued an order blocking President Trump’s new policies regarding birthright citizenship. The case was brought by four state attorneys general that opposed President Trump’s orders. North Carolina’s attorney general, Jeff Jackson, has joined a similar suit. A flurry of articles have been published since Thursday morning covering the judge’s order, but most of these pieces seem to miss a key point: the judge’s order apparently prohibits the Trump administration from enforcing its new policies anywhere, even in states that never challenged President Trump’s policies.

I have not yet obtained a copy of the court’s opinion, but in its press release covering the ruling, the Washington Attorney General’s Office said that the holding “blocks federal agencies from implementing the president’s executive order” without mentioning any limitations and notes that it “protects immigrant families nationally [emphasis added].” Below, I take a look at why this injunction might be problematic and explain how it might affect the case brought by NC Attorney General Jackson.

Last year, the US Supreme Court made clear that judges cannot typically issue universal nationwide injunctions. In a case called Labrador v. Poe (2024), the court was confronted with an order by a federal judge that blocked Idaho from enforcing its ban on gender transition surgeries against anyone. The court declared that this injunction was unlawful because it attempted to regulate nonparties.

In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch argued that federal courts cannot issue orders that lack a foundation in the power of English courts at the time of the founding: “Under those rules,” he wrote, “a federal court may not issue an equitable remedy more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to [redress] the plaintiff’s injuries.” However, “[i]n recent years, certain district courts across the country have not contented themselves with issuing equitable orders that redress the injuries of the plaintiffs before them, but have sought instead to govern an entire State or even the whole Nation from their courtrooms.”

Thankfully, in Poe, the court took steps to limit that practice and return federal courts to their historical role.

Justices Thomas and Alito joined Gorsuch’s opinion, though this was not the first time that they had expressed concerns about universal injunctions. For example, in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which addressed the travel ban enacted by President Trump during his first term, Justice Thomas wrote a lengthy concurrence that first called attention to the recent surge in universal injunctions and laid out why they exceeded federal courts’ constitutional powers.

This skepticism of universal injunctions is not new. As Professor Samuel Bray of Notre Dame Law School has recently pointed out, the Supreme Court declared in 1995 that “relief should be limited to the parties before the Court.” Moreover, the court issued an order this past Thursday (at almost the same time that the Washington federal court issued a nationwide injunction) that overturned a national injunction against a federal money laundering law. In a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch urged his colleagues to prevent similar injunctions in the future by establishing a clear prohibition.

While there may be exceptions to the general rule against universal injunctions, it does not seem likely that any of them would apply to the birthright citizenship case brought in Washington. First, in Griffin v. HM Florida-ORL (2023), Justice Kavanaugh noted that the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows federal courts to “set aside” unlawful regulations, might allow orders that look a great deal like universal injunctions. But no agency has promulgated any formal regulations to implement President Trump’s policy, and more importantly, the Washington plaintiff states raised no claims under the APA in their brief.

Second, as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out in Poe, plaintiffs can obtain broader relief if they certify their suit as a class action. Yet the plaintiff states in this case have not done so — after all, their suit was only filed this week. Finally, Justice Kavanaugh mentioned in his Griffin concurrence that certain First Amendment doctrines that are specifically designed to protect nonparties, such as the overbreadth doctrine, might present a different question. That scenario also does not apply in this case, which raises no First Amendment claims.

These principles may hold important consequences for North Carolina’s birthright citizenship litigation. On Tuesday, NC Attorney General Jeff Jackson joined a suit against President Trump’s Executive Order filed by 17 other states and the District of Columbia. Importantly, Jackson’s suit (which was filed in Massachusetts) also asks the presiding judge to issue a universal injunction. It asks the district court to “enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing the [Executive] Order” anywhere.

If granted, this request would probably be overturned on appeal. However, the suit goes further. It also asks the court to “[v]acate any actions taken by Defendant agencies to implement or enforce the [Executive] Order” under the Administrative Procedure Act. Since the APA does authorize universal vacatur, it is more likely that this request would be upheld on appeal. However, it is unclear whether any “agency action[s], findings, and conclusions” (to use the APA’s language) in pursuit of the birthright citizenship policy have been issued yet. Thus, there might not be anything for the Massachusetts court to vacate. If that is the case, then this suit may not be ripe for decision, and Jackson’s challenge would have to wait.

In conclusion, it is very difficult to justify a universal injunction against President Trump’s policy under current Supreme Court precedents. If the Washington court’s order falls into this category, it is likely that either the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court will soon reverse it. If other plaintiffs challenging the administration’s orders continue to seek universal injunctions, they will face major challenges. Even in controversial cases, the Constitution imposes clear limits on the power of federal courts.