crs_reports: R48972

Congressional Research Service reports with summaries, authors, and topic classifications.

This data as json

id title publish_date update_date status content_type authors topics summary pdf_url html_url
R48972 Class Action Lawsuits and Classwide Injunctive Relief 2026-06-05T04:00:00Z 2026-06-06T05:54:27Z Active Reports Bryan L. Adkins   In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court limited the ability of federal courts to issue nationwide (or universal) injunctions, which are court orders prohibiting the government from implementing a challenged law, regulation, or other policy against all persons and entities, including non-parties to the lawsuit. Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025). Although CASA limited the availability of nationwide injunctions, the decision left open a number of potential avenues for litigants to obtain broad relief for persons or entities affected by allegedly unlawful government policies. Class action lawsuits are one such avenue, and class actions have attracted increased attention as a potential alternative to nationwide injunctions following CASA. Whereas a nationwide injunction blocks the government from enforcing a law or policy against all persons and entities, a class action is a form of representative action that seeks relief for members of a defined class. Classwide injunctive relief is sometimes functionally equivalent to a nationwide injunction insofar as a class may be defined broadly to cover large numbers of affected individuals or entities who are not participating actively in the case. Class actions in federal court must satisfy certain procedural requirements. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23) governs class actions in federal courts. Rule 23’s requirements help ensure that absent class members’ interests are protected and that the lawsuit is the type of case for which class treatment would be beneficial. A lawsuit may not proceed on a class basis unless the court certifies the class upon determining that Rule 23’s requirements are met. Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 313–15 (2011). The party seeking class certification bears the burden of demonstrating that the requirements are met, and the Supreme Court has held that courts must perform a “rigorous analysis” before deciding whether certification is warranted. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350–52 (2011). Class certification decisions often involve evidentiary hearings and may require the court to address complex legal issues that overlap with the merits of the case. To the extent class actions are viewed as an alternative to nationwide injunctions, some observers have expressed concern that class certification may not always be possible to achieve quickly, or at all, in some cases in which courts otherwise may have granted a nationwide injunction. See, e.g., Suzette M. Malveaux, Class Actions, Civil Rights, and the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. F. 56, 58–60 (2017). In addition to the potential difficulty of satisfying Rule 23’s requirements, obtaining class certification can also be expensive and time-consuming, and some courts and commentators have raised questions about the extent to which courts may expedite class certification or grant injunctive relief for putative class members without first certifying a class. See, e.g., L.G.M.L. v. Noem, 800 F. Supp. 3d 100, 117 n.3 (D.D.C. 2025). In contrast, some legal scholars contend that obtaining certification for a class seeking injunctive relief against the government is generally not as difficult as other commentators have suggested. See, e.g., David Marcus, The Class Action After Trump v. CASA, 72 UCLA L. Rev. Discourse 2, 8–9. The prospect of using class actions as a substitute for nationwide injunctions has also raised concerns that district courts may become too permissive in certifying class actions after CASA, and that loose enforcement of Rule 23’s certification requirements could undermine the CASA ruling. Plaintiffs have obtained broad, classwide injunctions in a number of class actions challenging government policies since the Supreme Court’s CASA decision, but it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court may respond as more such cases work through the judicial system. The extent to which class actions may become a substitute for nationwide injunctions after CASA remains subject to ongoing debate. Nationwide injunctions have received substantial attention from the 119th Congress, and some legal scholars have observed that nationwide class actions against the government may implicate similar policy concerns as nationwide injunctions in certain respects. See, e.g., Michael T. Morley, Disaggregating Nationwide Injunctions, 71 Ala. L. Rev. 1, 52–53 (2019); David Marcus, The Class Action After Trump v. CASA, 72 UCLA L. Rev. Discourse at 23. Congress has substantial constitutional authority to regulate federal court procedures, including the procedures that apply to class action lawsuits. Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 472 (1965). In light of the increased focus on class actions as a potential substitute for nationwide injunctions, Congress may choose to monitor the use of the class action device in lawsuits seeking injunctive relief against the government, and evaluate whether such use aligns with Congress’s preferences. If Congress wished, it could consider legislating to expand or limit the ability of plaintiffs to bring suits challenging government policies on a class action basis. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48972/R48972.2.pdf https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48972.html

Links from other tables