Key facts
- The Justice Department's appeal asks the Supreme Court to limit relief to the specific plaintiffs who challenged a rule.
- The appeal does not contest the 5th Circuit's finding that parts of the surprise billing rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
- The Justice Department said the Supreme Court should return lower courts to their proper role under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- University of Virginia law professor Aditya Bamzai said a win for Trump would give the executive branch more flexibility.
- Washington University law professor Ronald Levin said a ruling would make it take longer for challengers to remove unlawful regulations.
The Trump administration has asked the US Supreme Court to curtail the ability of federal judges to invalidate agency regulations nationwide, according to an appeal filed by the Justice Department and reported by Reuters on November 14, 2026.
The case arises from a challenge by Texas medical providers to federal rules implementing a statute Trump signed during his first term to limit unexpected medical bills. The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals voided parts of the rule nationwide in August, finding an Administrative Procedure Act violation. The administration is not contesting that finding; it argues courts should at most block a regulation's enforcement against the specific plaintiffs who sued.
The Supreme Court in June 2025 restricted nationwide, or universal, injunctions that block the government from enforcing a policy against anyone. That ruling came in litigation over Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship and addressed judicial power, not the legality of the directive. The court is expected to consider whether to take up the new case early next year.
Aditya Bamzai, a University of Virginia expert in administrative law, said a win for Trump could let the government enforce rules broadly on all but the plaintiffs for years as litigation plays out, even after judges deem them unlawful. "Whether you like or dislike that flexibility can perhaps depend on whether you like or dislike a particular administration's policies," Bamzai said.
Ronald Levin, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said the power to wipe an unlawful rule off the books is sometimes the only sensible solution. "You can't have a food-safety rule that applies only to some," Levin said, adding that judges should have the tool without using it in every case.
Texas, Florida and some other mostly Republican-led states had urged the 5th Circuit not to weaken the Administrative Procedure Act, calling it a critical tool to curb federal overreach.