The recent deliberations of the US Supreme Court concerning President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship have shed unexpected light on class actions as a potential alternative to universal injunctions. During oral arguments in mid-May, although discussions of universal injunctions were anticipated, extensive attention was surprisingly directed towards the potential of class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, particularly the Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class action.
As legal expert Mila Sohoni remarked, the emphasis on class actions emerged as a prominent feature in the arguments. The Trump administration, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, underscored class actions as a tool permissible under Article III and traditional equitable practices, in contrast to universal injunctions, which they argued were beyond the courts’ remit. This perspective was shared by Vanderbilt law professor Brian Fitzpatrick, who noted the unexpected focus on class actions within these proceedings.
The utilization of class actions could potentially address various criticisms targeted at nationwide injunctions, such as circumventing issues of constitutionality by ensuring that affected individuals become formal parties through the class certification process. Nonetheless, challenges remain, as class actions do not entirely mitigate issues like forum and judge-shopping or the hinderance of legal issue percolation across lower courts. These nuances, Fitzpatrick suggests, demonstrate that there remains little practical difference between a nationwide class action and a universal injunction.
An illustrative example of these dynamics occurred in a case about the Trump administration’s deportation policy for migrants to “third countries.” Legal maneuvering positioned the case advantageously in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, a move reflective of forum-shopping concerns. A temporary restraining order and subsequent class certification were quickly enacted following the filing.
The situation reflects broader concerns within the judiciary, as seen in the Supreme Court’s deliberations in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, which followed the birthright-citizenship arguments. The Court’s decision to provisionally provide relief to a putative class, even without full certification, signaled a shift in judicial emergency responses without necessarily resolving intricate details regarding class certification, something that Justice Samuel Alito and others, like legal pundit Steve Vladeck, viewed with scrutiny.
This development might reshape conventional views on class actions and injunctions as legal strategies evolve under changing administrative landscapes. For further insights, the case and related implications can be examined more deeply in Bloomberg Law’s detailed analysis.