Key Takeaways
- Federal government has asked SCOTUS to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
- Coalition has filed an amicus brief in support of nationwide injunctions, arguing that they are lawful and necessary where cases have national application.
- The Supreme Court will hear arguments on May 15, 2025.
Background
As part of continued efforts to weigh in on legal cases of national concern, the National Apartment Association (NAA) has joined a coalition of other associations to file an amicus brief, often referred to as a “friend of the court” brief, in Trump v. CASA, Inc before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
The case itself is in the early stages of litigation, and the current issue before SCOTUS focuses on the legality of nationwide injunctions. The federal government is requesting relief from a district court order issuing a nationwide injunction, which temporarily blocks enforcement of a law in question while litigation is pending. The federal government has asked SCOTUS to stay, or pause, the district court’s nationwide injunction except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states.
The government argued in its filings that nationwide injunctions are legally and historically dubious and compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions. The government requested SCOTUS intervene to prevent district courts around the country from having the ability to issue nationwide injunctions. NAA and the coalition filed this amicus brief in support of nationwide injunctions, arguing they are lawful and necessary where cases have national application. The government’s partial stay request has been deferred, pending oral argument, currently set for May 15, 2025.
The Coalition’s Amicus Brief
On April 29, 2025, NAA, along with its coalition of other associations, including the Restaurant Law Center, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, Inc. and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (the Coalition), filed its amicus brief. The brief makes four arguments in response to the government’s request for a partial stay:
- Federal courts have the equitable power to issue nationwide injunctions;
- Nationwide injunctions are often necessary to provide adequate relief from unlawful federal action that applies nationwide;
- To be effective, injunctive relief must cover all affected association members, including those not directly before or identified to the court; and
- Categorically barring nationwide injunctions risks serious harm to associations and their members.
Deeper Dive - Arguments
Within its brief, the Coalition argued federal courts have the equitable power to issue nationwide injunctions under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The Coalition noted the scope of injunctive relief is meant to be dictated by the extent of the violation established, not by the geographical extent of the plaintiff class. The Coalition also observed that in cases of federal government action, nationwide injunctions ensure uniformity and consistency in enforcement around the country. It points out that nationwide injunctions are historically apolitical and have been issued to pause actions under both Republican and Democratic presidents, and the brief provided numerous examples where nationwide injunctions have thwarted the policy goals of the most recent administrations. The Coalition’s brief also cited several appellate court and SCOTUS decisions outlining similar instances where a limited injunction was found ineffective, especially in cases of national application and limited relief was found to be unwieldy or only cause more confusion.
Next, the Coalition argued nationwide injunctions often provide the most adequate form of relief from potentially unlawful action that affects the entire country. It also argued that limiting relief to a narrow class of plaintiffs or single jurisdiction can cause more harm than good by creating an unworkable legal patchwork that imposes conflicting obligations on employers who operate and compete across multiple jurisdictions. In support of this position, the Coalition cited several real-world examples to illustrate why nationwide injunctions are often necessary; one example being the recent litigation regarding the Corporate Transparency Act and its requirement regarding the filing of beneficial ownership information. In granting a nationwide injunction, the district court in Texas noted the law applied nationwide to approximately 32.6 million companies and concluded it was not possible to provide preliminary relief to plaintiffs, who operated and competed nationwide, without issuing injunctive relief across the entire country.
Subsequently, the Coalition argued that injunctive relief can only be effective if it includes all affected association members, not just those known or identified to the court. It noted that SCOTUS has well established precedent on associational standing, where an organization can assert standing on behalf of its members. The Coalition observed that this established precedent recognizes that when an association receives injunctive relief, it is only effective if it applies to all members, including those not known. It asserted in its brief that if this established precedent were overturned, it would undermine First Amendment rights of associations by forcing associations to disclose their individual members. The Coalition also pushed back on the government’s notion that nationwide injunctions were “a relatively new phenomenon” by highlighting that federal courts have issued such injunctions as early as 1913.
Lastly, the Coalition argued that categorically barring nationwide injunctions carries the risk of serious harm to the Coalition, coalitions of other associations, and their members noting all members in this coalition operate in highly regulated and competitive business environments, all of whom work to comply with all applicable laws. Without nationwide injunctions, all its members would be subjected to conflicting legal obligations in different jurisdictions, resulting in a fragmented approach that would multiply compliance burdens, potentially disrupt operations, and create additional legal risk. The Coalition stressed these burdens would cause the most harm to small and mid-sized companies that were less equipped to handle fast-changing and inconsistent legal requirements. It also noted that if nationwide injunctions were barred, associations like NAA and other members of the Coalition could only get similar relief by filing a materially identical lawsuit in every one of the ninety-four district courts in the country, which would not only drain the resources of the association, but that of the judiciary.
What’s Next?
SCOTUS will hear oral arguments for this case on May 15, 2025. A decision regarding the government’s partial stay request is expected no later than the end of June 2025.
NAA’s Legal Affairs Team continues to stand strong for the rental housing industry and amplify the unique voices and perspectives of housing providers throughout our nation’s judicial system. As always, NAA will provide updates on potential industry impacts as this case progresses.