Trump Administration Seeks to Limit Judicial Power in Policy Challenges

The Trump administration has filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court, seeking to limit the power of judges to halt federal agency actions nationwide. The case involves a challenge by Texas medical providers to federal rules implementing a statute signed into law by President Trump to limit unexpected medical bills. The administration argues that courts should not be able to shut down an agency's regulation entirely, instead limiting any relief granted only to the specific plaintiffs in a given case.

The appeal is part of the administration's concerted push to make it harder for the judiciary to impede executive actions. Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump and his allies have criticized judges who have impeded his policies, deriding some as radical or corrupt. The Supreme Court in June 2025 clamped down on nationwide injunctions that can block the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, not just the challengers who sued.

The kinds of lawsuits targeted by Trump's administration are brought under a 1946 US law called the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs the way federal agencies operate. Judges and appeals courts have long claimed the power under this statute to "hold unlawful and set aside" agency regulations they deem illegal, invalidating them on a universal basis.

Proponents of the judicial tool, including numerous state governments that regularly sue the federal government, say it is an essential bulwark against executive overreach. Others argue that the APA is important to maintain uniform regulations applied equally to everyone. Law professor Ronald Levin of Washington University in St. Louis said that when an agency adopts a rule that has been held to be unlawful, sometimes the only sensible solution is to wipe it off the books.

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

The administration wants to extend the constraints that the Supreme Court's 2025 ruling placed on injunctions to similar orders judges may issue to invalidate policies under the APA. Aditya Bamzai, a University of Virginia expert in administrative law, said a win for Trump in the case could let the US government continue to enforce rules broadly on all but the plaintiffs in a given case, potentially for years as litigation plays out.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the Trump administration, it could take longer for challengers to get unlawful regulations removed from the books. The court's decision is expected to have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches.

Key points

• The US Supreme Court will consider a case that could restrict judges' ability to block federal agency actions nationwide.
• The Trump administration argues that courts should not be able to shut down an agency's regulation entirely.
• The case involves a challenge to federal rules implementing a statute signed into law by President Trump to limit unexpected medical bills.