A Fractured Litigation System

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Zach Curinga
July 14, 2025

The nature of public administration in the litigation sphere is about to significantly change as we know it. In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court found that the notion of a federal judge through a “universal injunction” effectively oversteps the overall power of the Judiciary. Practically, this means that while certain types of cases wind their way through the courts, policies and actions will be stopped in certain places but not in others. What this then means is that when an Executive Order commands a federal agency to carry out a policy diffusely and across the country, such as the USDA with carrying out SNAP or Social Security, only the District Court in which the litigation takes place can stop the action in that specific District.

Perhaps the more telling portion of the decision as it relates to public administration is Footnote 18: “And while the dissent speculates that the Government would disregard an unfavorable opinion from this Court, the Solicitor General represented that the Government will respect both the judgments and the opinions of this Court.” To unpack this, this is a concession from the Trump Administration that it will adhere to the Constitutional findings of the Supreme Court. This appears to be far from the profound renegotiation of the relationship between the three coequal branches; yet one can only assume that this decision as a whole may also be an example of the Court passively indulging in the once-fringe Unitary Executive Theory.

This theory has been increasingly cited in policy documents as a rationale to interpret the Executive’s power vested by the Constitution to the maximum degree possible. In conjunction with recent rulings, such as Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al., which narrows the scope of review but gives agency deference within that scope, it appears that the Supreme Court is curbing Judicial power while creating additional burdens to challenge the Executive.

The logical next step with regard to Trump v. CASA, Inc. pertains to the notion of vacatur. Agencies can request to vacate—i.e., dismiss—certain policies should these policies not align with the legislative mandate that Congress legislated. However, to vacate something, in effect, is an injunction (a stoppage) of something; this is exactly why the nature of public administration will change. Fractures will be prevalent.

Consider an agency that is present in Washington, D.C. and Kansas. Say that there is litigation from a plaintiff to stop the agency’s actions in the D.C. Circuit. Kansas is unaffected by the litigation. Under the Trump v. CASA, Inc. ruling, should the D.C. Circuit effect an injunction, it is only for the actions of the agency within the D.C. Circuit. The agency’s presence and policy in Kansas will continue unaffected, citing the Trump v. CASA, Inc. decision as precedent for it to continue its actions.

This is why the public administration field must focus on the notion of vacating a judgment or a policy. Vacating is only one step beyond prohibiting a certain action from taking place. This also means that, as a nation, the United States will be not only bound by the invisible lines that draw out our 50 states, but the invisible lines (less known to the citizenry at large) pertaining to the District Courts within and throughout our states.

It is disconcerting that this will likely come at the expense of agency legitimacy and future reputation. After all, it is often difficult for agencies to rebuild trust and momentum once it has been lost. This can also come at the expense of future budget and personnel decisions, as past decisions cast a shadow over the future of future administrations’ budgeting and personnel decisions. The only way to move is forward into an unknown and unpredictable future, where the Judiciary will cede power to the Executive and where the Executive represents that it will “respect” the Judiciary’s rulings.

---

 Author: Zachary Curinga is currently a PhD student at Rutgers-Newark, School of Public Affairs and Administration, (SPAA). His research interests include nonprofit management, organizational change, public health nutrition, and disability equity. He can be contacted by email at [email protected]

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...