Last Friday in Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court concluded that federal judges do not have the power to grant "universal injunctions" against executive actions or federal legislation. Rather, it said, any "equitable remedies" in such cases must be limited to the named plaintiffs.
On Wednesday, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., nevertheless issued an order broadly precluding federal officials from implementing the asylum restrictions and streamlined deportation procedures that resulted from a proclamation that President Donald Trump issued on his first day in office. That decision in RAICES v. Noem illustrates two alternatives to universal injunctions that can have much the same effect.
Unlike the Judiciary Act of 1789, the source of judicial authority that the Supreme Court construed last week in Trump v. CASA, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) explicitly requires federal courts to "set aside" agency actions when they are "arbitrary," "capricious," "an abuse of discretion," or otherwise contrary to law. The plaintiffs in RAICES v. Noem—13 individuals and three nonprofit organizations—argued that the immigration policies implemented under Trump's January 20 proclamation violated the APA.
