About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


2025 Suffolk Univ. L. Rev. Online Ed. 1 (2025)

handle is hein.journals/sfkunvlwrv2025 and id is 1 raw text is: 10 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. ONLINE (2025) COMMENTARY THE DEPARTMENTALIST PROBLEM WITH UNIVERSAL INJUNCTIONS: THREE INSIGHTS INTO TRUMP V. CASA Lawson Wright* I. Introduction On the final day of its most recent term, the Supreme Court resolved one of the term's most consequential questions: whether federal district courts may issue so-called universal injunctions. These injunctions which have proliferated in recent years-bar the federal government from enforcing a statute, executive order, or regulation, not just against the plain- tiffs before the court, but against anyone, nationwide.1 In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court rejected this broad remedy, hold- ing that universal injunctions exceed the equitable authority granted to the federal courts by the Judiciary Act of 1789.2 The Court's conclusion rested largely on historical grounds: Because no analogous relief existed in equity at the time of the Judiciary Act's enactment, the statute does not authorize such relief today.3 Yet, in focusing narrowly on the historical contours of equitable prac- tice, the Court and legal scholars have overlooked a deeper, more funda- mental rationale for rejecting universal injunctions: departmentalism. Un- like many today who consider the Supreme Court to be the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution, Americans at the country's founding widely understood the judiciary to be merely one of three co-equal branches of government. The Framers did not regard the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretations as uniquely authoritative. Rather, each branch of * A.B. Candidate, Princeton University, 2027. I am grateful to the editors of Suffolk University Law Review for their helpful edits and suggestions. I am also indebted to Robert George, Allen Guelzo, and David Tubbs for en- couraging me to pursue my academic interest in this area and for supporting my academic endeavors. All opinions and errors are, of course, my own. 1 See Samuel L. Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National In- junction, 131 HARV. L. REV. 417, 418-19, 444 (2017); Amanda Frost, In Defense of Nationwide Injunctions, 93 N.YU. L. REV. 1065, 1070-80 (2018); Mila Sohoni, The Lost History of the Universal Injunction, 133 HARv. L. REV. 920, 922-23 (2020). 2 See Trump v. CASA, Inc., 145 S. Ct. 2540, 2548 (2025). 3 See id. at 2550-53. 1