Fact Check: Supreme Court ruling could still allow broad relief for plaintiffs against government actions.

Fact Check: Supreme Court Ruling Could Still Allow Broad Relief for Plaintiffs Against Government Actions

What We Know

On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc., which limited the ability of individual judges to issue universal injunctions against government actions. This decision was seen as a significant shift in judicial power, as it restricts judges from providing nationwide relief to plaintiffs. However, the ruling did not eliminate the possibility of broad relief entirely. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her opinion, noted that while universal injunctions might exceed the authority granted to the judiciary, the decision does not resolve whether the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) allows federal courts to vacate federal agency actions. This suggests that there may still be avenues for plaintiffs to seek broad relief under specific circumstances, particularly involving the APA, which aims to protect against "unlawful, arbitrary and capricious governmental action" (source-2).

Analysis

The Supreme Court's ruling has been interpreted in various ways by legal experts and commentators. Some argue that the decision significantly narrows the scope of judicial power, particularly in cases where plaintiffs seek nationwide injunctions. For instance, the ruling limits judges to providing relief only to the named plaintiffs in a case, which could potentially reduce the effectiveness of lawsuits aimed at challenging broad government policies (source-3). However, the ruling also includes a footnote indicating that it does not preclude the possibility of broad relief under the APA (source-2). This nuance is critical; it implies that while universal injunctions may be curtailed, plaintiffs could still leverage the APA to seek remedies that affect broader groups or even entire classes of individuals.

Moreover, legal experts like Skye Perryman have pointed out that the ruling does not undermine the ability of courts to issue broad injunctions when necessary to provide relief, especially in cases involving the APA (source-2). This perspective suggests that while the ruling does impose limitations, it also leaves open significant legal pathways for plaintiffs to challenge government actions.

The reliability of the sources used in this analysis varies. The Supreme Court's official opinion (source-1) is a primary legal document and thus highly credible. Articles from established news organizations like NPR and Reuters provide informed commentary and analysis, though they may reflect the editorial perspectives of their respective outlets. Legal analyses from law firms (source-7) also offer valuable insights, but their interpretations may be influenced by the firms' interests or biases.

Conclusion

The claim that the Supreme Court ruling could still allow broad relief for plaintiffs against government actions is Partially True. While the ruling limits the power of judges to issue universal injunctions, it does not entirely eliminate the possibility of broad relief under the APA. Legal avenues remain for plaintiffs to seek remedies that could impact larger groups, indicating that the landscape of judicial relief is complex and evolving.

Fact Check: Supreme Court ruling could still allow broad relief for plaintiffs against government actions.