Department of Homeland Security v. New York
The Court allowed the federal government to resume enforcing its new 'public charge' immigration rule everywhere except Illinois while appeals continue, reversing a single New York judge's order that had blocked the rule across the entire country.
A concurring opinion by Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, used the case to sharply criticize the growing practice of trial courts issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions that go far beyond the parties in any particular lawsuit.
How it got here: A New York federal judge issued a universal preliminary injunction blocking the rule nationwide; the Second Circuit declined to stay it; the government brought an emergency stay application to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The Department of Homeland Security finalized a rule redefining who counts as a "public charge" — a term used in immigration law to deny entry or permanent residence to people likely to rely heavily on government assistance. States, advocacy groups, and individual immigrants sued in several courts around the country, and a federal judge in New York issued an order blocking the rule from being enforced against anyone, anywhere in the United States.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court pause a federal judge's nationwide order blocking the Trump administration's new immigration "public charge" rule while legal challenges work through the courts?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court paused the New York district court's nationwide injunction, allowing the federal government to enforce its public charge rule (except in Illinois, where a separate injunction remained in place) while the Second Circuit appeal and any further Supreme Court review proceed.
The per curiam order gives no detailed reasoning. If the Second Circuit ultimately rules in the government's favor and the government timely seeks Supreme Court review, the stay remains in effect until the Supreme Court acts. If the Court declines to hear the case, the stay ends automatically.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Immigrants who might rely on public benefits could be affected by the rule taking effect again during the appeals process. More broadly, the Gorsuch concurrence signals that at least two justices are eager for the Court to rein in the practice of single trial-court judges blocking federal policy across the entire country — a tool used by challengers of policies from both parties.
What changes now
The government may enforce its public charge rule nationwide except in Illinois while the Second Circuit hears the government's appeal. If the Second Circuit rules for the government and the Supreme Court is asked to step in, the stay continues until the Court acts. If the Court declines review, the stay lifts automatically. The underlying question of whether the rule is lawful remains entirely unresolved.
What this does not decide
The stay does not decide whether the public charge rule is lawful under the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, or the immigration statutes. It also does not resolve the broader legal question — flagged by Gorsuch — of whether courts have the power to issue universal injunctions at all.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Gorsuch
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, agreed the stay was right but wrote separately to condemn the widespread practice of trial courts issuing injunctions that block government policy as to the entire country, not just the parties in the case. He argued universal injunctions have little basis in traditional equitable practice, sow chaos across the judicial system, and raise serious constitutional questions about courts acting beyond their Article III power to resolve specific cases. He urged the Court to address these questions directly in a future case.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The per curiam order gives no written explanation for granting the stay — a typical feature of emergency stay orders. The five-justice majority simply determined the government's application warranted relief, implicitly concluding that the government was likely to succeed on the merits, that it would suffer serious harm without a stay, and that the balance of interests favored pausing the injunction while appeals continued.
- Justice Gorsuch's concurrence (joined by Justice Thomas) supplied the broader context: by the time the New York injunction reached the Court, multiple district courts across the country had issued conflicting orders — some blocking the rule in certain states, some blocking it globally, some staying their own orders — creating a chaotic and unworkable patchwork that made normal, orderly appellate review impossible.
- Gorsuch argued that so-called 'universal' or 'nationwide' injunctions — orders directing the government to act or not act with respect to people who are not parties to the lawsuit — raise serious constitutional problems. Courts, he explained, derive their power from Article III, which limits them to resolving actual cases and controversies between the parties before them; ordering relief that extends to strangers to the suit strains that boundary.
- He further argued that universal injunctions distort the judicial process practically: they force rushed, high-stakes decisions on thin records, encourage plaintiffs to shop for a single sympathetic judge to block a policy everywhere, and deprive the Supreme Court of the benefit of multiple circuits carefully developing competing views over time — a process that normally sharpens the Court's own analysis.
- Gorsuch concluded by calling for the Court to take up the constitutional and equitable limits of universal injunctions in an appropriate future case, signaling he and Thomas view the issue as ripe for resolution.