Client Update: Supreme Court Ends Nationwide Injunctions—What Employers Need to Know

July 25, 2025

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA that federal district courts cannot block executive orders for the entire country. The Court held that such broad injunctions exceed the authority Congress granted under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Courts may now only stop enforcement for the parties in the case—not for everyone else.


What Happened in the Case


President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 in early 2025. It denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Multiple lawsuits followed. Three federal courts blocked the order nationwide. The Supreme Court disagreed. It sent the case back and told the lower courts to revise the injunctions to cover only the named plaintiffs.

The Court did not decide whether the order itself violates the Constitution. It ruled only on how far a court’s injunction can reach.


Why It Matters to Employers


The ruling affects how quickly and widely federal courts can stop controversial policies, especially during fast-changing political cycles. Employers have often relied on national injunctions to pause new mandates on wages, workplace safety, pay transparency, and non-compete agreements.

This decision limits that option. The Court said nothing about injunctions under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs agency rules. But the opinion raises doubts about whether even those can continue on a nationwide scale. Justice Kavanaugh suggested they might, but the Court left that question for another day.


What This Means for You


  1. No nationwide protection unless you sue
    If your business is not part of the case, you likely cannot rely on someone else’s win. You must litigate directly to get relief.
  2. Rules may take effect in one state and not another
    A federal court in Texas may block a rule, while a court in New York upholds it. National companies may face conflicting rules and inconsistent enforcement.
  3. Trade groups cannot shield you
    Even if your industry association wins an injunction, it may apply only to their members or to the parties named in the lawsuit.
  4. Older rulings may now shrink
    Past national injunctions—on vaccine mandates, non-compete bans, overtime rules, or joint-employer standards—could be challenged or narrowed based on this ruling.
  5. More class actions are likely
    Some plaintiffs may now push for class certification to restore broader relief. Employers could face more complex litigation as a result.


Next Steps for Employers


  • Identify any current or past rules your business has relied on that are being blocked nationwide. Confirm whether you were covered by name or just assumed you were protected.
  • Reassess your risk exposure for pending federal actions under OSHA, the EEOC, the DOL, or the NLRB.
  • Monitor APA-based injunctions to see whether courts continue to grant broad relief under that statute.
  • Consider joining strategic litigation early if new executive orders or agency rules would harm your operations.


You cannot assume another company’s lawsuit will protect you. The Court narrowed that path. To block a federal mandate, you may now need to act alone—or join the fight directly.

 

Michael P. Lewis is an attorney at The Royal Law Firm with experience advising clients through the litigation process. Michael helps employers resolve workplace challenges with focus, precision, and judgment. He counsels and defends businesses across Massachusetts and Connecticut, handling matters involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour claims, restrictive covenants, and breach of contract. His practice includes litigation in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.