Trump asks Supreme Court to curb judges' power to void unlawful rules nationwide

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to limit federal judges' power to strike down unlawful government rules for the whole country. The Justice Department argues that when a court finds a rule illegal, the relief should usually go only to the people or groups who sued ¹².

The case is Department of Health and Human Services v. Texas Medical Association, No. 26-491. The government filed its appeal on Oct. 14, 2026. Reuters reported on it in detail on Saturday, Nov. 14 ¹³.

A surprise-billing case becomes a test of judicial power

The fight started with the No Surprises Act. That federal law took effect Jan. 1, 2022. It protects insured patients from unexpected out-of-network bills for emergency room visits, air ambulance rides and planned care at in-network hospitals and surgery centers ⁶.

The Texas Medical Association, the air ambulance company LifeNet and other providers sued over parts of a 2021 rule. That rule set the formula for the "qualifying payment amount," a benchmark used in deciding what out-of-network providers get paid. On Aug. 11, 2026, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit left in place a lower-court ruling that threw out those provisions ⁴.

From Channel GOPRaskin says Trump collected $2.2 billion on the sideJamie Raskin · 218 plays · captioned, with the source named

The administration is not arguing that the rule was legal. It is challenging only the remedy: the power of judges to set aside a rule for everyone rather than just for the plaintiffs ¹⁴. In legal terms that power is called "universal vacatur," and it comes from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a 1946 law that sets out how federal agencies write rules and how courts review them ²⁵.

The department wrote that the justices "should return the lower courts to their proper role under the APA" ¹. It relies heavily on Trump v. CASA, the June 27, 2025 ruling in which the Supreme Court sharply limited nationwide injunctions ²⁴. That decision expressly left the APA question open ⁷.

should return the lower courts to their proper role under the APA.

What changes if the government wins

Aditya Bamzai, an administrative law expert at the University of Virginia, told Reuters that such a ruling would make the executive branch more flexible. He added that how people feel about that may depend on which administration holds the power ¹².

Ronald Levin, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told Reuters that striking a rule down nationwide is sometimes the only workable fix. He gave food safety and auto safety as examples ¹².

You can't have a food-safety rule that applies only to some.

This tool has been used against Trump policies. A federal judge in Oakland threw out the agency policies behind the administration's $100,000 payment on H-1B work visas in a ruling reported around Oct. 1, 2026. A Maryland judge threw out a 2025 immigration agency policy that kept nonprofit groups from registering new citizens to vote at naturalization ceremonies ⁵.

A July 2026 report from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, counted 50 nationwide injunctions against the second Trump administration, 16 of them issued after the CASA decision. It found that lower courts have refused to stretch CASA to cover APA cases, and that the government generally stops enforcing policies a court has vacated ⁷.

Democrats warned about this road in 2025

When the court limited nationwide injunctions in June 2025, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois called the ruling a serious blow to the separation of powers ⁹. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, then the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the court had "ridiculously reinterpreted the Judiciary Act of 1789 to block nationwide injunctions" ⁸.

The Constitution and the people are stronger than Donald Trump's determination to ignore them both.

playing procedural games with the most fundamental right explicitly protected by our Constitution.

The Trump administration is not the first to ask. In 2023, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to limit this same power, in a case Republican attorneys general from Texas and Louisiana had brought over an immigration policy. The justices did not take up that request ¹. In that case, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the court would "have to address" the issue at some point ⁵.

Texas, Florida and other mostly Republican-led states have defended the broad remedy. They urged the Fifth Circuit not to "neuter" the APA as a check on federal overreach ¹.

What happens next

The medical groups' response was first due Nov. 13. The court extended that deadline to Dec. 14, 2026. On Nov. 13, the New Civil Liberties Alliance and the Landmark Legal Foundation filed friend-of-the-court briefs, which are filings from groups that are not parties to the case ³.

The justices are expected to decide in early 2027 whether to hear the case ². Four justices must agree to take it ⁴. If they agree by about mid-January, a decision would likely come by the end of June 2027 ⁵.

That matters because the case is not really about one billing formula. It is about who has the last word when a federal agency breaks the law. If the government wins, a rule a judge has found illegal could stay in force for millions of people who never sued. The Congressional Research Service notes that Congress could rewrite the APA to settle the question ⁷.

The Record

1. Jan 1, 2022The No Surprises Act takes effect, protecting insured patients from many unexpected out-of-network bills ⁶
2. Jun 27, 2025In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions but leaves the APA question open ²⁷
3. Aug 11, 2026The full Fifth Circuit leaves in place a ruling throwing out parts of the 2021 surprise-billing payment rule ⁴
4. Oct 14, 2026The Justice Department asks the Supreme Court to bar universal vacatur of unlawful rules in case No. 26-491 ³
5. Dec 14, 2026Extended deadline for the medical groups to respond to the government's petition ³

Free to reprint Republish this story on your site or in your newsletter

Any site, blog or newsletter may run this story free of charge. Keep the credit line and its link to the original, do not sell it, and edit only for length or house style (the full terms). Photos carry their own licenses, noted under each photo on this page, so use the text alone unless a credit says otherwise.

<h2>Trump asks Supreme Court to curb judges&#39; power to void unlawful rules nationwide</h2> <p><em>By The GOP Files Investigations Desk. This article first appeared on <a href="https://thegopfiles.com/story/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-curb-judges-power-to-void-unlawful-rules-nationwide">The GOP Files</a> on Saturday, November 14, 2026.</em></p> <p>The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to limit federal judges&#39; power to strike down unlawful government rules for the whole country. The Justice Department argues that when a court finds a rule illegal, the relief should usually go only to the people or groups who sued .</p> <p>The case is Department of Health and Human Services v. Texas Medical Association, No. 26-491. The government filed its appeal on Oct. 14, 2026. Reuters reported on it in detail on Saturday, Nov. 14 .</p> <h2>A surprise-billing case becomes a test of judicial power</h2> <p>The fight started with the No Surprises Act. That federal law took effect Jan. 1, 2022. It protects insured patients from unexpected out-of-network bills for emergency room visits, air ambulance rides and planned care at in-network hospitals and surgery centers .</p> <p>The Texas Medical Association, the air ambulance company LifeNet and other providers sued over parts of a 2021 rule. That rule set the formula for the &quot;qualifying payment amount,&quot; a benchmark used in deciding what out-of-network providers get paid. On Aug. 11, 2026, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit left in place a lower-court ruling that threw out those provisions .</p> <p>The administration is not arguing that the rule was legal. It is challenging only the remedy: the power of judges to set aside a rule for everyone rather than just for the plaintiffs . In legal terms that power is called &quot;universal vacatur,&quot; and it comes from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a 1946 law that sets out how federal agencies write rules and how courts review them .</p> <p>The department wrote that the justices &quot;should return the lower courts to their proper role under the APA&quot; . It relies heavily on Trump v. CASA, the June 27, 2025 ruling in which the Supreme Court sharply limited nationwide injunctions . That decision expressly left the APA question open .</p> <blockquote><p>should return the lower courts to their proper role under the APA.</p><p>&mdash; D. John Sauer, U.S. solicitor general; his office filed the Justice Department&#39;s petition</p></blockquote> <h2>What changes if the government wins</h2> <p>Aditya Bamzai, an administrative law expert at the University of Virginia, told Reuters that such a ruling would make the executive branch more flexible. He added that how people feel about that may depend on which administration holds the power .</p> <p>Ronald Levin, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told Reuters that striking a rule down nationwide is sometimes the only workable fix. He gave food safety and auto safety as examples .</p> <blockquote><p>You can&#39;t have a food-safety rule that applies only to some.</p><p>&mdash; Ronald Levin, Law professor, Washington University in St. Louis</p></blockquote> <p>This tool has been used against Trump policies. A federal judge in Oakland threw out the agency policies behind the administration&#39;s $100,000 payment on H-1B work visas in a ruling reported around Oct. 1, 2026. A Maryland judge threw out a 2025 immigration agency policy that kept nonprofit groups from registering new citizens to vote at naturalization ceremonies .</p> <p>A July 2026 report from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, counted 50 nationwide injunctions against the second Trump administration, 16 of them issued after the CASA decision. It found that lower courts have refused to stretch CASA to cover APA cases, and that the government generally stops enforcing policies a court has vacated .</p> <h2>Democrats warned about this road in 2025</h2> <p>When the court limited nationwide injunctions in June 2025, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois called the ruling a serious blow to the separation of powers . Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, then the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the court had &quot;ridiculously reinterpreted the Judiciary Act of 1789 to block nationwide injunctions&quot; .</p> <blockquote><p>The Constitution and the people are stronger than Donald Trump&#39;s determination to ignore them both.</p><p>&mdash; Jamie Raskin, Ranking member, House Judiciary Committee (June 2025), D-Md.</p></blockquote> <blockquote><p>playing procedural games with the most fundamental right explicitly protected by our Constitution.</p><p>&mdash; Dick Durbin, Senate Democratic Whip, D-Ill. (June 2025 statement on Trump v. CASA)</p></blockquote> <p>The Trump administration is not the first to ask. In 2023, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to limit this same power, in a case Republican attorneys general from Texas and Louisiana had brought over an immigration policy. The justices did not take up that request . In that case, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the court would &quot;have to address&quot; the issue at some point .</p> <p>Texas, Florida and other mostly Republican-led states have defended the broad remedy. They urged the Fifth Circuit not to &quot;neuter&quot; the APA as a check on federal overreach .</p> <h2>What happens next</h2> <p>The medical groups&#39; response was first due Nov. 13. The court extended that deadline to Dec. 14, 2026. On Nov. 13, the New Civil Liberties Alliance and the Landmark Legal Foundation filed friend-of-the-court briefs, which are filings from groups that are not parties to the case .</p> <p>The justices are expected to decide in early 2027 whether to hear the case . Four justices must agree to take it . If they agree by about mid-January, a decision would likely come by the end of June 2027 .</p> <p>That matters because the case is not really about one billing formula. It is about who has the last word when a federal agency breaks the law. If the government wins, a rule a judge has found illegal could stay in force for millions of people who never sued. The Congressional Research Service notes that Congress could rewrite the APA to settle the question .</p> <p><em>Read the original, with every source linked, at <a href="https://thegopfiles.com/story/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-curb-judges-power-to-void-unlawful-rules-nationwide">thegopfiles.com</a>. Republished under The GOP Files' <a href="https://thegopfiles.com/republish">free republishing terms</a>.</em></p> <img src="https://thegopfiles.com/api/rp/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-curb-judges-power-to-void-unlawful-rules-nationwide.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" style="border:0;width:1px;height:1px">

Copy the HTML Paste it into your editor's HTML view. The one-pixel image at the end tells our newsroom the story ran; it stores no reader data.

Sources

1. Reuters (via WTVB), “At the Supreme Court, Trump aims to cut the power of judges again” (2026-11-14). wtvbam.com/2026/11/14/at-the-supreme-court-trump-aims-to-cut
2. IBTimes UK, “Trump Asks Supreme Court To 'Return the Lower Courts to Their Proper Role' in Bid To Boost His Power” (2026-11-14). ibtimes.co.uk/trump-administration-supreme-court-nationwide-
3. Supreme Court of the United States, “Docket No. 26-491: Department of Health and Human Services v. Texas Medical Association” (2026-11-13). supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/ht
4. O'Neill Institute, Georgetown Law, “Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Limit Universal Vacatur In No Surprises Act Case” (2026-10-20). oneill.law.georgetown.edu/publications/trump-administration-
5. Immigration Analytics, “Justice Department Asks the Supreme Court to Limit Universal Vacatur, the Remedy Behind Many Immigration Policy Losses” (2026-10-17). immigration-analytics.com/2026/10/17/justice-department-asks
6. CMS, “Medical bill rights: The No Surprises Act” (2026-11-14). cms.gov/medical-bill-rights
7. Congressional Research Service, “Nationwide Injunctions and Universal Judicial Relief One Year After Trump v. CASA (R49022)” (2026-07-07). everycrsreport.com/reports/R49022.html
8. House Judiciary Committee Democrats, “Ranking Member Raskin's Statement on Supreme Court's Decision in Trump v. CASA” (2025-06-27). democrats-judiciary.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/ra
9. Office of Sen. Dick Durbin, “Durbin statement on Supreme Court decision to limit judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions” (2025-06-27). durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-statement-o

Found an error? Tell the newsroom. Corrections are noted at the top of the story.