Howard Wasserman (Florida International University (FIU) – College of Law) has posted Constitutional Litigation After Trump v. CASA, 21 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y 277 (2026) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Trump v. CASA resolved a decade-old scholarly debate about whether federal courts can grant “universal” injunctions in constitutional cases—injunctions prohibiting the executive from enforcing the challenged law against all persons subject to the law, beyond the plaintiffs to the action. A 6-3 Court said federal courts could issue remedies necessary to accord “complete relief to the plaintiffs,” without the power to protect non-parties.
The various opinions in CASA offer competing visions of litigation, adjudication, and judicial decisionmaking. The case plays and will continue to play an essential role in ongoing challenges to Trump Administration policies and regulations and all constitutional litigation. This essay explores four issues of constitutional litigation and adjudication that CASA explains, undermines, alters, or strengthens. First, the Court adopted the appropriate label for these overbroad injunctions—universal; this extends the scope issue to encompass challenges to federal and state law. Second, the Court divided over competing models of the judicial role and power, with the majority settling on a form of “Supreme Court supremacy,” in which the Supreme Court (but not lower courts) establishes constitutional law for all government actors. Third, the Court identified four paths through which plaintiffs may achieve broader relief, without courts issuing universal injunctions. Finally, the Court did not engage in unwarranted partisan behavior in using this case to resolve the simmering debate over universal injunctions.
Highly Recommended! This is the final version of a paper previously posted on Legal Theory Blog.
To receive new posts from Legal Theory Blog by email, get a free subscription to Legal Theory Stack.
Lawrence Solum