Supreme Court Examines Push to Limit Judges’ Power Over Federal Agencies

The Supreme Court is weighing a new challenge that could significantly narrow the ability of federal courts to block policies advanced by the Trump administration, placing a sharper focus on the judiciary’s role in checking executive action.

The case now before the justices centers on the power of federal courts to invalidate regulations issued by government agencies. It arrives after the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in 2025 that sharply limited nationwide or “universal” injunctions, which had allowed judges to halt a federal policy against anyone rather than only the parties who brought suit.

• Supreme Court previously limited judges’ power to block Trump.
• The new appeal concerns judicial power over federal agencies.

The administration has argued that courts should not be permitted to halt an agency’s regulation altogether. Instead, it contends, any court order should be confined to the specific plaintiffs who challenged the policy in a given case.

According to the Justice Department, the case now before the Supreme Court concerns judicial power over federal agencies and whether courts have authority under the Administrative Procedure Act to invalidate agency rules on a broad basis.

Aditya Bamzai, a University of Virginia expert in administrative law, said a ruling in favor of the Trump administration could permit the government to enforce a regulation broadly against all but the plaintiffs in a case, potentially for years while litigation continues even after judges have deemed the rule unlawful.

“That would give the executive branch more flexibility,” Bamzai said. “Whether one likes or dislikes that flexibility may depend on whether one likes or dislikes a particular administration’s policies.”

Since returning to office in January 2025, President Donald Trump and his allies have criticized judges who have opposed administration policies, describing some rulings as radical or politically motivated. At the same time, the administration has pressed the limits of executive authority.

At the administration’s request, the Supreme Court in June 2025 curtailed nationwide injunctions that had become a common tool for opponents of Trump policies. The ruling addressed judicial power rather than the underlying legality of the policy involved.

The new appeal stems from a challenge by Texas medical providers to a federal rule implementing a statute signed during Trump’s first term aimed at limiting unexpected medical bills. The appeal is part of the administration’s broader effort to make it harder for courts to impede executive actions.

The lawsuits have been brought under a 1946 law known as the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies operate and how regulations are implemented. Courts have long claimed authority under that law to “hold unlawful and set aside” agency regulations.

Since Trump returned to office, his administration has faced hundreds of lawsuits challenging aggressive actions involving immigration, mass deportation, diversity initiatives, transgender rights and other policy areas that have pushed the boundaries of presidential power.

Plaintiffs have invoked the Administrative Procedure Act in cases involving termination of humanitarian legal status for migrants, cuts to research grants and the use of a mass voter verification system for citizenship checks.

Supporters of broad judicial review, including numerous state governments that frequently sue the federal government, argue that the judicial tool is an essential check against executive overreach. Others contend that the Administrative Procedure Act is necessary to maintain uniform regulations applied equally.

“When an agency adopts a rule that has been held unlawful, sometimes the only sensible solution is to wipe it off the books,” said law professor Ronald Levin of Washington University in St. Louis.

“You cannot have a food-safety rule that applies only to some,” Levin said. “You cannot have an auto-safety manufacturing rule that applies only to some manufacturers. It is a tool they should have—not one they should use in every case, but in some cases the need is compelling.”

The Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling restricting judicial power came in litigation over Trump’s bid to limit birthright citizenship. That ruling addressed judicial authority, not the legality of the citizenship policy. The justices issued a separate 6-3 ruling that June rejecting the policy as unconstitutional.

The administration now seeks to apply constraints from the 2025 ruling to similar judicial actions under the Administrative Procedure Act. The regulation at issue concerned “surprise” medical bills from hospitals and out-of-network providers.

A Texas association of medical doctors, air-ambulance providers and other plaintiffs argued that the regulation violated the Administrative Procedure Act and affected insurance reimbursement rates. The New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals voided parts of the rule nationwide in August.

The administration’s appeal is not challenging the 5th Circuit’s decision about the regulation’s legality. Instead, it is seeking to prevent courts from using the Administrative Procedure Act to stop a policy nationwide.

The administration contends that the Administrative Procedure Act does not grant courts such broad authority and that courts should be able to block enforcement against specific plaintiffs rather than invalidate rules entirely.

The Justice Department said in its filing that the Supreme Court “should return the lower courts to their proper role under the Administrative Procedure Act.” If the court agrees, Levin said, “it would take longer for challengers to get unlawful regulations removed from the books.”

The Biden administration also attempted in 2023 to persuade the Supreme Court to limit judges’ use of the authority, but the justices did not take up the invitation and backed Biden in that case on other grounds.

The Trump administration may now face pushback from a broad array of opponents. Texas, Florida and some other states, mostly Republican-led, had urged the 5th Circuit not to “neuter” the effectiveness of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Those states said the law is critical for curbing federal overreach and executive-branch agency action into state sovereignty. “The APA is a critical tool … to curb federal overreach and incursions into state sovereignty by executive-branch agencies,” they said.

Source link