Nationwide injunction

Administrative law of the United States
General Rulemaking Notice of proposed rulemaking Adjudication Administrative law judge Code of Federal Regulations Federal Register
Statutory framework Administrative Procedure Act Freedom of Information Act National Environmental Policy Act Government in the Sunshine Act National Emergencies Act Inspector General Act Regulatory Flexibility Act Paperwork Reduction Act Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Congressional Review Act Federal Vacancies Reform Act
Regulatory coordination Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrative Conference Executive orders Cost–benefit analysis (Executive Order 12866)
Judicial review of agency action Arbitrary and capricious State Farm Chevron deference Auer deference Loper Bright Committed to agency discretion Due process Londoner Bi-Metallic Goldberg Mathews Exhaustion Major questions Nationwide injunction Ripeness Abbott Labs Standing Lujan
Separation of powers Appointments Clause Freytag Noel Canning Congressional oversight Authorization Organic statute Appropriation Hearings Senate confirmation Independent agencies Humphrey's Executor Seila Law Unitary executive theory Legislative veto Chadha Nondelegation
Regulated fields (and agencies) Antitrust and competition FTC CPSC CFPB Banking Treasury OCC FDIC FRB Communication FCC Energy DOE FERC Environment EPA FWS Food FDA CDC Health care HHS Immigration DHS EOIR Labor DOL NLRB Patent/trademark PTO Securities SEC CFTC Taxation IRS TC Trade DOC ITC Transportation DOT STB NTSB Social Security SSA
Related topics Constitutional law Statutory interpretation
v t e

In United States law, a nationwide injunction (also called a universal injunction^[1][2] or national injunction) is injunctive relief in which a court binds the federal government even in its relations with nonparties.^[3]: 418 In their prototypical form, nationwide injunctions are used to restrict the federal government from enforcing a statute or regulation.^[4]: 2424

Nationwide injunctions have come into prominent use and controversy during the Obama and Trump administrations, when they have been used by federal judges to enjoin the enforcement of significant policies, including the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans policy^[5] and the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy.^[6]