United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett (Official portrait public domain)
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month in Trump v. CASA has broad implications for civil rights litigation, limiting the reach of a key legal tool long used to halt discriminatory policies, including in President Donald Trump’s tumultuous second term.
With a 6-3 opinion written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court narrowed the circumstances under which federal judges may issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions, which can block a government policy from being enforced against anyone, not just the parties to a lawsuit.
“Thanks to this decision, we can now probably file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,” President Donald Trump declared shortly after the ruling, speaking from the White House briefing room flanked by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
The White House and the president’s allies for months had accused courts of working to undermine the MAGA agenda, noting that Democratic administrations were hit with far fewer injunctions despite major losses like the 2022 order blocking former President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, which would have impacted some 40 million borrowers.
Critics, on the other hand, argued the disparity is better explained by Trump’s tendency toward lawlessness, with Article III judges acting as a check against an administration that has sought to run roughshod over vulnerable communities like immigrants or transgender Americans.
Among those who have been watching the case closely is Cynthia Weaver, senior director of litigation at the Human Rights Campaign.
In an interview following the ruling, Weaver acknowledged the legal terrain has shifted in a challenging direction but rejected any suggestion that LGBTQ rights advocates are retreating. “It really means we have to continue to do what we have always been doing,” she said, “proceeding deliberately and carefully in the type of relief we’re seeking on a case-by-case basis.”
Status of nationwide injunctions that have halted anti-LGBTQ policies
In his second term, Trump has gone after LGBTQ people on a variety of fronts. Examples include the ban on trans people serving in the military, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rule allowing federally funded shelters to deny access based on gender identity, the rollback of nondiscrimination protections in health care, education, and housing, the executive order restricting the issuance of passports with gender markers other than “M” or “F,” and the sweeping policy denying Medicaid reimbursement for gender-affirming care for minors.
Until now, many of those policies have been blocked — or delayed — by federal courts issuing universal injunctions.
But in Trump v. CASA, the court ruled that Article III judges may only extend relief beyond the named plaintiffs when it is “necessary to ensure that the plaintiffs in the case are provided complete relief,” which means many of those nationwide blocks could now be narrowed or undone altogether.
“We are very well aware that various courts, including the Supreme Court, have been engaged in animated, spirited debate over the scope of this type of relief,” Weaver said. “It’s not a surprise to the attorneys. But certainly now this case has provided us with a bit more clarity in terms of what the court finds offensive.”
While the CASA decision didn’t ban universal injunctions outright, it makes them harder to justify. That means the Justice Department is expected to file motions in the coming weeks asking judges to narrow existing injunctions to apply only to the plaintiffs named in each case.
“Courts need to be asked to do something,” Weaver said. “So attorneys have to file motions to the courts to seek relief and offer various arguments in that regard.” In practice, this means that where a lower court previously blocked a rule from taking effect nationwide, the DOJ will now argue that the relief should be limited to the specific individuals or organizations who sued.
Weaver explained, “So, for example, if there is a case, let’s say, challenging an executive order, and there was a preliminary universal injunction that was issued by the lower court, DOJ would have to ask the court to reconsider the scope of that relief in that case, because of the CASA decision.”
She added that since CASA was decided, some courts have independently — without a request from the DOJ —narrowed the injunctive relief they had previously granted.
Still, not all injunctions will be affected. “It doesn’t mean that every universal injunction that has been granted thus far will necessarily be” undone, Weaver said. “They will have to do a case-by-case analysis, looking at the facts, the circumstances in which the plaintiffs are moving forward with the challenged action.”
Some cases already feature diverse plaintiff pools that could soften the blow of CASA. “There are individual persons as plaintiffs, but there are also organizations that are already plaintiffs in those cases as well,” Weaver said. “Because there’s a mixed combination of varying plaintiff types, the CASA decision may have less of an impact in those cases.”
In other words, cases already structured to represent a broad class of affected people, or those supported by robust membership organizations, may still be able to achieve broad relief.
The class action tradeoff
One of the alternatives suggested by the conservative justices on the court is for plaintiffs to seek class certification, which would permit judges to grant relief on behalf of everyone in a clearly defined group.
However, the approach is considered more difficult and burdensome for litigants challenging the federal government.
“Class actions are inherently cumbersome and procedure heavy,” Weaver said. “It takes time for the district court to decide whether to certify the class,” and “the ruling on the class certification can be immediately appealed. It’s subject to interlocutory appeal. That, in itself, can slow down litigation.”
Another obstacle: Only individuals — not states — can serve as class representatives. “So the burden falls on an individual to go forward,” Weaver said, “and there’s no guarantee that the court will allow the individual to proceed anonymously or with a pseudonym.”
That’s a major concern for undocumented people as well as for LGBTQ plaintiffs, who often risk harassment, employment discrimination, or violence by adding their names to a federal court filing.
“There are circumstances under which it will be very unsafe for the plaintiff to go forward,” Weaver said. “So then in those cases, like in the CASA case, it is for the plaintiffs to make the argument to the court why they are entitled to this type of relief.”
Courts must then balance that request against due process and public interest concerns, deliberations that can take time and add to the burden facing plaintiff-litigants.
Pressure on plaintiffs and their resources
The cumulative effect of all this is an added burden on plaintiffs — and the lawyers who represent them.
“Litigation takes a long time,” Weaver said. “The plaintiffs in our cases already have to weigh the risks of serving [in that role], going through the roller coaster of the case. They already know that. It takes so much resilience and commitment and courage to put yourself out there for this.”
HRC has longstanding partnerships with law firms that donate their time, and Weaver stressed that “we are very grateful for the pro bono law firms that have worked with us over the years and are continuing to do so.” She added, “It is so important to have lawyers who can make independent decisions and be competent to provide services to people who need it.”
Weaver acknowledged that litigation is expensive. “If we’re talking about resources, resources are already strained — not only from this administration, but from the prior several years amid states’ attacks on LGBTQ rights,” she said.
At the same time, she said, “The way the movement has been nimble and learned different areas of law and strategy has been very inspiring.”
Despite the added complexity CASA introduces, Weaver expressed confidence that LGBTQ advocates and others involved in impact litigation for civil rights causes will adapt. “We still have clients with individual needs and clients who have injury to them and harm to them because of specific government actions, laws, policies,” she said. “They will not stop us from being strategic and thinking creatively around cases that could be successful and bring relief for our community.”
For Weaver, the CASA decision is a reminder that civil rights litigation doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
“This case underscores the importance of how all of the issues across different movements are still entwined with each other, specifically at this moment,” she said. “We’ve been working across movements for many years, but I think this is a moment where we should really strengthen those relationships.”
HRC and other legal organizations are now in a period of recalibration. “I just want to stress that it’s a case-by-case evaluation,” Weaver said. “Because it is so crucial what the factual record looks like; facts still do matter.”
“There are so many advocates and lawyers who have been working on these issues,” she said, “and when we’re in it together, it feels a little bit more manageable.”
The National LGBT Media Association represents 13 legacy publications in major markets across the country with a collective readership of more than 400K in print and more than 1 million + online. Learn more here: NationalLGBTMediaAssociation.com.
