Navigating Class Actions After Trump v. CASA
The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025) fundamentally altered the landscape of federal litigation by eliminating the universal injunction. The ruling, grounded in a historical analysis of equity practice, held that federal courts lack the authority to issue remedies that bind the government concerning non-parties outside the confines of a certified class. This has created a significant void for litigants seeking systemic relief. However, the Court, particularly in Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, explicitly pointed to class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23 as the appropriate vehicle for broad, aggregated remedies.
For practitioners, this shifts the strategic focus from the scope of the remedy to the procedural rigor of class certification. The post-CASA era demands a sophisticated understanding of FRCP 23(b)(2) to achieve or defend against broad injunctive relief. The practical importance of these class action strategies becomes clear when examining complex policy implementations like Executive Order 14160, where the breadth of affected populations and the uniformity of government action make class treatment essential for meaningful relief.
The Strategic Centrality of FRCP 23(b)(2)
While universal injunctions offered a swift, albeit procedurally controversial, path to nationwide relief, class actions provide a structured, due-process-compliant framework. FRCP 23(b)(2) is now the primary mechanism for systemic challenges. It permits certification when "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole."
The advantage of the (b)(2) class is its focus on the uniformity of the defendant's conduct and the indivisibility of the relief sought, rather than the predominance of individual issues required under (b)(3). However, obtaining certification is not automatic. Many courts may still rigorously apply Rule 23(a)'s requirements—numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy—with a heightened focus on whether the proposed class is sufficiently cohesive to warrant a single, binding injunction.
Recent Developments and Heightened Scrutiny
Lower courts are rapidly implementing the Supreme Court's suggested procedural path, treating the CASA concurrence as a blueprint. However, they are doing so while integrating other recent, restrictive trends in class action jurisprudence.
Standing and Cohesion: The shadow of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021) looms large. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that all class members have Article III standing. While TransUnion focused on damages under (b)(3), its core holding—that every class member must have suffered a concrete injury—is increasingly being applied to (b)(2) classes seeking injunctive relief. Plaintiffs must clearly articulate a concrete, imminent risk of future harm shared by all class members. Defense counsel should aggressively challenge standing at the certification stage, arguing that generalized grievances or speculative future harms are insufficient to support a broad class injunction.
Commonality Post-Dukes: The requirement of commonality (Rule 23(a)(2)) demands that the class members' claims depend upon a common contention capable of class-wide resolution. Following Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011), plaintiffs must show that the defendant's uniform policy caused a common injury. In the (b)(2) context, this means demonstrating that the challenged policy affects all class members in the same way. Defense counsel should seek to fracture commonality by highlighting variations in how the policy is implemented or how it impacts different subsets of the proposed class.
The Ascertainability Debate: While primarily a concern for (b)(3) classes, the requirement that class members be ascertainable through objective criteria is relevant to (b)(2) analysis. A vaguely defined class makes it impossible for a court to determine who is protected under the injunction; this might renew due process concerns that CASA sought to avoid.
Strategic Considerations for Certification
Navigating this landscape requires meticulous preparation by both plaintiff and defense counsel.
For Plaintiffs' Counsel:
Precise Class Definition: Draft the class definition with precision. Avoid "fail-safe" classes or definitions requiring individualized merits determinations. The definition must be narrow enough to ensure cohesion and commonality but broad enough to achieve the desired systemic relief.
Build the Record for Cohesion: From the initial complaint, focus discovery on the uniformity of the defendant's conduct. Demonstrate that the "general applicability" requirement of (b)(2) is met—that the defendant's action (or inaction) is a consistent policy applied to the entire class.
Vetting Representatives: Ensure named plaintiffs are typical and adequate. They must have robust standing and their claims must be perfectly aligned with the class. Anticipate challenges that the named plaintiffs are not subject to the same harms as absent class members.
For Defense Counsel:
Challenge Cohesion and Standing Early: Use TransUnion to argue that the proposed class includes uninjured members. Attack commonality by introducing evidence of individualized discretion in the policy's application or diverse impacts on the class.
Propose Divisibility of Relief: Counter the (b)(2) requirement that injunctive relief is appropriate for the "class as a whole" by arguing that the requested relief is, in fact, divisible, or that individualized assessments are necessary to determine who is entitled to relief.
Scrutinize Adequacy: In public interest litigation, where motivations may vary, investigate potential conflicts between the named plaintiffs, counsel, and absent class members.
The elimination of universal injunctions has not ended systemic litigation. Instead, it has channeled it into the rigorous procedural framework of Rule 23. Post-CASA, the battleground is class certification, demanding greater precision and a deeper evidentiary record from all parties.