June 27, 2025
SCOTUS Answers 235-Year-Old Question
Have you ever wondered how a federal district judge in one state can render a decision that impacts the entire nation? I have. It is a question of jurisdiction. HR professionals and business owners have seen this happen time and time again. Remember…
- way back in November 2016 when a federal judge from the Eastern District of Texas just five (5) before the U.S. Department of Labor’s overtime rule was set to take effect, blocked it nationwide;
- August 20, 2024, when a federal judge from the Northern District of Texas did the same before the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements was to take effect on September 4, 2024; and
- November 15, 2024, when another federal judge from the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction blocking implementation of the DOL’s overtime rules – the one that had already taken effect July 1, 2024, and the other that was to take effect January 1, 2025.
On Friday, June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court answered our question as to whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789 (enacted in September), federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. The answer was, “No.” The federal district courts may issue injunctions that are “no broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
From a practical standpoint, there are pros and cons of this decision for business owners and HR professionals.
Half-empty: With federal judge’s authority restricted to the judge’s jurisdiction and the parties to the case, multi-state employers will have less continuity is how they comply with federal rules that apply in some states and not others.
Half-full: We are less apt to have so much flip-flop with EO’s and federal regulations being issued, then blocked, then unblocked as they work their way up the chain of appellate courts.
