Re-Defining the Reach of Universal Injunctions: The First Circuit’s Post-CASA Remand Protocol in State of New Jersey v. Trump

Introduction

On 3 July 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a short but consequential order in the consolidated appeals known collectively as State of New Jersey v. Trump, Nos. 25-1169 & 25-1170. The underlying litigation challenges Executive Order No. 14,160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” signed by President Donald J. Trump on 20 January 2025.

Two distinct plaintiff groups—(1) individual immigrants and community organizations, and (2) a coalition of twenty states and the City & County of San Francisco—secured a “universal” (nation-wide) preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts barring enforcement of the Executive Order. The federal government appealed and simultaneously sought interim stays.

While those appeals were pending, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. __ (2025), an opinion casting serious doubt on the propriety of universal injunctions and directing the lower courts to “move expeditiously” to tailor overbroad relief. Relying on CASA, the government moved the First Circuit for supplemental briefing and an accelerated merits ruling. The First Circuit instead denied that motion, declined to entertain a stay that had not been properly presented, and issued a limited remand so the District Court could reconsider the scope of its injunction under the new Supreme Court guidance—while the appellate panel retained jurisdiction.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Motion Denied. The court refused to order supplemental briefing because: (a) no stay motion was presently before it; and (b) Rule 8(a)(1) requires that interim relief be sought in the district court first.

2. Limited Remand Granted. In light of CASA, the panel remanded to allow the District Court to re-examine whether the universal injunction is broader than necessary to afford “complete relief” to plaintiffs with standing. The Court of Appeals expressly retained jurisdiction, ensuring that any revised injunction would return to it swiftly for further review.

3. Expedited Treatment Emphasized. Echoing CASA, the panel anticipated “prompt” action under the District Court’s already-entered briefing schedule.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. __ (2025) — The Supreme Court’s seminal opinion held that universal injunctions “likely exceed” statutory equitable powers except where necessary to secure complete relief for the plaintiffs before the court. It declined to decide the scope question itself and instructed lower courts to “move expeditiously” to recalibrate injunctions.
• New Jersey v. Trump, 131 F.4th 27 (1st Cir. 2025) — The First Circuit’s own earlier stay decision in this same litigation, which (i) denied a stay, and (ii) held that arguments for narrower relief were forfeited when not raised below.
• Philip Morris Inc. v. Harshbarger, 159 F.3d 670 (1st Cir. 1998) — The panel reiterated the “raise-it-or-lose-it” rule: objections to a preliminary injunction cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
• Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1) — Prescribes that a stay pending appeal must be sought in the district court before the court of appeals entertains the request.

Each of these authorities steered the First Circuit away from addressing the breadth of the injunction itself and toward a procedural solution—remand—while respecting Article III limits and Supreme Court directives.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Jurisdictional Posture. The government’s motion sought supplemental merits briefing ostensibly to facilitate a stay, yet no stay motion was pending. Under Rule 8 and Philip Morris, the panel lacked a procedural vehicle to grant immediate relief. It emphasized adherence to orderly process.
2. Effect of CASA. Because CASA questioned universal injunctions but endorsed “complete relief” where justified, the First Circuit deemed it “prudent” to give the trial court the first look at tailoring the injunction, consistent with the Supreme Court’s delegation.
3. Retention of Appellate Jurisdiction. Employing the “limited remand” device, the panel avoided piecemeal appeals and preserved its control over the larger controversy. This mirrors the approach used in complex injunction litigation, ensuring no loss of appellate jurisdiction.

C. Potential Impact on Future Cases

• Standardizing Post-CASA Protocols. Other circuits may adopt similar limited remands when a pending Supreme Court decision alters the equitable framework mid-appeal.
• Procedural Discipline. Litigants must now assume that (i) arguments for narrower injunctions belong in the district court; and (ii) universal relief will face increased skepticism unless indispensable for complete plaintiff-specific relief.
• State-Led Cooperative Litigation. The order implicitly recognizes that multi-state plaintiff coalitions complicate the “complete relief” analysis and may sometimes justify broader remedies, a point the District Court must now articulate with record evidence.
• Equitable Authority Boundaries. By embracing CASA’s language, the First Circuit contributes to a growing jurisprudence tethering equitable power to congressional authorization—potentially catalyzing legislative action to clarify or expand federal remedial authority.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Universal (Nation-wide) Injunction: A court order preventing the government from enforcing a law or policy against anyone, including non-parties. Such orders are rare and controversial because they effectively act as “legislation from the bench.”
• Complete Relief Principle: Rooted in equity, courts may craft remedies broad enough to make the actual plaintiffs whole. The remedy’s scope is plaintiff-centric, not nation-centric.
• Limited Remand with Retained Jurisdiction: The appellate court sends a specific question back to the trial court but keeps the appeal alive, avoiding multiple appeals while allowing factual development.
• Stay Pending Appeal: A temporary suspension of the lower court’s order while the appeal is resolved. Under Rule 8, litigants generally must request the stay first from the trial judge before asking the appellate court.
• Supplemental Briefing: Additional briefs ordered when new authority or events (like a Supreme Court decision) arise after initial briefing but before decision.

Conclusion

The First Circuit’s order in State of New Jersey v. Trump does more than manage case logistics; it crystallizes an emerging doctrine on the limits of nationwide injunctions after Trump v. CASA, Inc. By denying hurried supplemental briefing, insisting on proper procedural channels, and remanding for a tailored equity analysis, the court reinforced three principles:

1. equitable remedies must be no broader than necessary for the parties before the court;
2. appellate courts will not bypass district-court fact-finding obligations;
3. litigants must strategically preserve and present remedial arguments at the earliest stage.

Going forward, challengers of federal policies should expect more granular, plaintiff-specific injunctions, while government defendants must build factual records early to argue for narrower relief. The order thus stands as a procedural roadmap for courts grappling with the post-CASA landscape and underscores the judiciary’s ongoing effort to balance nationwide governance concerns with traditional bounds of equitable authority.