By Andrew Chung
Nov 14 (Reuters) – When President Donald Trump’s administration convinced the U.S. Supreme Court last year to restrict federal judges’ ability to block its actions nationwide – a major strengthening of its power – the decision left intact a distinct tool that some of them have used to thwart presidential policies.
Now, Trump is also targeting the tool in another challenge to judicial authority, which could further protect his far-reaching agenda from broad “legal attacks.”
An appeal filed by Trump’s Justice Department, now pending before the Supreme Court, urges the justices to restrict the judges’ long-standing ability to halt the actions of federal agencies that wield immense power to implement the Republican president’s policy priorities.
According to the administration, courts should not be able to strike down an agency’s regulations entirely, but rather limit any relief awarded to only specific plaintiffs in a given case.
Aditya Bamzai, an administrative law expert at the University of Virginia, said a Trump victory in the case could allow the U.S. government to continue applying the rules broadly to all but the plaintiffs in a given case, potentially for years while litigation plays out, even after judges have ruled them illegal.
Siding with Trump “would give more flexibility to the executive branch,” Bamzai said.
“Whether or not you like this flexibility may perhaps depend on whether or not you like the policies of a particular administration,” Bamzai added.
Since returning to power in January 2025, Trump and his allies have castigated judges who have obstructed his policies — calling them radical or corrupt — even as he tests the limits of presidential powers.
At the request of the Trump administration, the Supreme Court in June 2025 cracked down on nationwide — or “universal” — injunctions that can prevent the government from enforcing policy against anyone, not just challengers who have filed suit. Judges have increasingly used such orders in a wide range of cases against Trump, including those alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution.
HINDERING EXECUTIVE ACTION
The new appeal stems from a challenge by Texas medical providers to federal rules implementing a law Trump signed into law during his first term to limit surprise medical bills. The call is part of the administration’s concerted efforts to make it more difficult for the judiciary to obstruct executive actions. The Supreme Court is expected to consider whether to take up the case early next year.
The types of lawsuits targeted by the Trump administration are governed by a 1946 U.S. law called the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, which governs how federal agencies operate, including how regulations are implemented.
Judges and appeals courts have long asserted the authority under this law to “declare illegal and void” agency regulations they deem illegal, thereby invalidating them on a universal basis.
Since Trump returned to office, his administration has faced hundreds of lawsuits challenging his aggressive moves to limit immigration, pursue mass deportations, end diversity initiatives and restrict transgender rights, among other actions, which have stretched the limits of presidential authority.
Various plaintiffs have filed lawsuits invoking the APA in numerous cases, including fighting against the end of humanitarian legal status for hundreds of thousands of migrants living in the United States, against significant reductions in research grants related to racial minorities or LGBT people, and against the use of a mass voter verification system to conduct sweeping citizenship checks.
EXECUTIVE EXECUTION
Proponents, including many state governments that regularly sue the federal government, say the judicial tool is a critical bulwark against executive overreach. Others say that “APA is important for maintaining uniform regulations applied equally to everyone.”
“When an agency adopts a rule that has been found to be illegal, sometimes the only sensible solution is to take it off the books,” said law professor Ronald Levin of Washington University in St. Louis.
“You can’t have a food safety rule that only applies to certain manufacturers. You can’t have an automobile safety rule that only applies to certain manufacturers,” Levin said. “It’s a tool they (judges) should have – not a tool they should use in every case, but… there are certain cases where the need arises.”
The court’s 2025 ruling restricting the judges’ power follows litigation over Trump’s attempt to limit the right to citizenship, a long-held right in the United States. This decision was about the judiciary, not the legality of the Trump birthright directive.
Although Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration also asked the Supreme Court to rein in universal injunctions, with lower courts blocking many of its key initiatives, the 2025 ruling proved to be a major victory for Trump.
The justices issued a separate 6-3 ruling last June on the legality of Trump’s birthright citizenship policy, rejecting it “as unconstitutional.”
“SURPRISE” MEDICAL BILLS
The administration wants to expand the constraints imposed by the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling on injunctions to similar orders that judges can issue to invalidate policies under the APA.
The regulations at issue in the case being appealed by the administration were intended to limit “surprise” medical bills from hospitals and health providers outside a patient’s health insurance network. A Texas association of doctors, air ambulance providers and other plaintiffs argued that the settlement violated the APA and artificially deflated their insurance reimbursement rates.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down parts of the rule nationwide in August on the grounds of violating the APA.
The Trump administration’s appeal does not challenge the 5th Circuit’s decision regarding the legality of the regulation. Rather, it seeks to prevent judicial use of the APA to end policy nationwide.
The administration argues, as it did in its lawsuit against the universal injunctions, that the APA does not grant courts such broad power, but rather allows them to block enforcement of a regulation at most against specific plaintiffs who challenged it in a particular case.
The Supreme Court “should restore lower courts to their proper role under the APA,” the Justice Department said in its filing.
If the Supreme Court agrees, Levin said, “it will take longer for challengers to get illegal regulations removed.”
The Biden administration also tried in 2023 to convince the Supreme Court to limit judges’ use of that power in a case in which Republican attorneys general from Texas and Louisiana challenged an immigration policy. The justices did not respond to the invitation and supported Biden in the case on other grounds.
The Trump administration may face pushback from a wide range of opponents over its new efforts.
Texas, Florida and some other states, mostly run by Republicans, had urged the 5th Circuit not to “neutralize” the effectiveness of the APA, calling the law important for maintaining the balance of power between the states and the federal government.
“The APA is a critical tool…to curb federal government overreach and incursions on state sovereignty by executive agencies,” these states said.
(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; editing by Will Dunham)
Gn headline
