Trump Asks Supreme Court to Rein In Lone Judges

Here is a court fight you will hear a lot more about, and almost nobody is covering it in plain English.

In June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. CASA that "universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts." That decision limited one tool a single judge could use to block a federal policy everywhere. But it left a back door open: it did not decide what to do about universal "vacatur" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), where a judge declares an agency rule unlawful and wipes it off the books for everyone.

Now the Trump administration wants the Court to close that door too.

### What was filed

The petition was docketed on Oct. 14, 2026, as Department of Health and Human Services v. Texas Medical Association, No. 26-491, and it was signed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, according to the Supreme Court docket as reported in coverage of the filing. The Hill and Law360 both reported on it. The question presented: whether the APA provision telling courts to "set aside" unlawful agency action (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)) authorizes courts to vacate agency rules universally, and if so, in what circumstances.

The underlying case is a dispute over a federal surprise-medical-billing rule. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled on Aug. 11, 2026, and treated vacatur as the APA's default remedy, relying on its earlier Cargill v. Garland decision, according to the opinion and coverage of it.

The administration's argument, as reported by The Hill: the APA's instruction to "set aside" agency action does not give a single judge a license to nullify a rule nationwide. Sauer warns that when a rule is wiped off the books for everyone, the government has to "run the table," winning in every court where it is sued, while a challenger needs only one judge to say yes.

### What the critics say

Defenders of universal vacatur say that is exactly what the APA's text means: if an agency rule is unlawful, the court "sets it aside," and the rule no longer exists. Courts have long done it, and the Fifth Circuit just reaffirmed that. They also point out that the Justice Department did not announce its formal position against universal vacatur under the APA until 2018, and that a rule that is illegal for one plaintiff is just as illegal for the next. Some will note the filing also benefits the administration as the defendant in many lawsuits. All fair points, and the Court will have to weigh them. It is also true, as commentators have noted, that CASA expressly left the question open.

### The take

Strip away the legalese and the issue is simple. Should one unelected judge in one district be able to halt a policy for the entire country, and should the government have to win every case in every court just to keep the rule in force while a single loss ends it everywhere?

That structure rewards forum shopping, and everyone in Washington knows it. A challenger picks the friendliest court, wins once, and the policy is gone coast to coast. Conservatives know this from the Biden years. Progressives are learning it now, when the shoe is on the other foot, and that may be why the debate has become so honest.

The timing matters. Reports say the justices are likely to consider the petition at a closed-door conference later this term. If the Court takes it and agrees with the administration, the effect would be broad: it would shape every future fight over executive-branch rules, regardless of which party holds the White House.

That is what conservatives should want: a rule of law where courts rule on the cases in front of them, and where Congress, not a lone judge, sets the national policy. Whatever you think of the underlying surprise-billing dispute, the principle is worth the Court's attention. Watch the conference list.