•  
  •  
 
University of the District of Columbia Law Review

Abstract

Trump v. CASA, Inc. significantly reduced the remedial authority of the federal judiciary by rejecting the power of federal district courts to issue universal injunctions, a tool long used to halt widespread constitutional violations. Framed as a procedural decision about equitable remedies, the ruling severely narrows the scope of relief available in challenges to executive action. This Comment examines how the Court’s decision limits lower courts’ capacity to provide meaningful remedies and reshapes the balance of power among the branches of government. The analysis argues that the majority misapplies case law like Grupo Mexicano by imposing an unduly rigid historical test that confines equitable relief to forms recognized by the Court of Chancery at the nation’s founding. In doing so, the Court departs from precedent recognizing equity as flexible and adaptive, particularly in cases involving systemic constitutional violations. The decision also centralizes constitutional enforcement in the Supreme Court by stripping lower federal courts of the authority to issue nationwide relief, effectively narrowing the judiciary’s role as a check on executive overreach. Finally, this Comment considers the institutional consequences of this shift, including the Supreme Court’s limited capacity to address the volume of constitutional claims that universal injunctions once remedied and the increasing reliance on the Court’s emergency docket. This centralization reduces transparency, encourages expedited decision-making, and risks leaving many individuals without effective judicial protection. By constraining equitable authority in this manner, Trump v. CASA, Inc. marks a significant transformation in the separation of powers, one that weakens the judiciary’s ability to safeguard the rule of law at a critical constitutional moment.

First Page

113

Download

Included in

Courts Commons

Share

COinS