Trump targets judicial roadblocks — Seeking another limit on federal judges’ power

The administration is asking the Supreme Court to restrict nationwide invalidation of federal regulations. A dispute over medical billing could reshape the reach of judicial oversight.

Donald Trump’s administration is seeking another ruling limiting federal judges’ ability to halt government policies across the United States.

The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to consider whether courts can invalidate federal agency regulations altogether, or whether the relief they grant should be limited to the specific plaintiffs who brought the case.

The case remains at the petition stage. The court has not ruled on this new question.

Protection for plaintiffs — or invalidation for everyone?

At issue is judges’ authority to set aside an administrative rule they find unlawful.

The administration argues that a court decision should not automatically prevent enforcement against people who were not parties to the lawsuit.

If that interpretation prevails, a regulation could continue to operate more broadly despite a judicial finding against it, with protection initially confined to those who sued.

Supporters of broader invalidation argue that certain rules must apply uniformly — or be removed uniformly when unlawful.

Ronald Levin, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, gave Reuters an example:

“You can’t have a food-safety rule that applies only to some.”

The case began with surprise medical bills

The petition stems from litigation over federal regulations implementing legislation against unexpected medical charges.

The challengers include the Texas Medical Association, a hospital and air-ambulance providers.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the decision under review on August 11, 2026. The federal government filed its Supreme Court petition on October 14, in Department of Health and Human Services v. Texas Medical Association.

According to Reuters, the administration’s petition does not challenge the finding that the disputed provisions were unlawful. It challenges the broader reach of the judicial remedy.

What the law says about judicial review

The dispute concerns the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, the federal law governing administrative agencies and judicial review of their actions.

Section 706 directs reviewing courts to decide relevant legal questions and set aside agency actions found to violate specified legal standards.

Grounds for intervention include arbitrary decision-making, exceeding statutory authority, violating constitutional rights and failing to follow required procedures.

The disagreement concerns the scope of that power: whether an unlawful agency action is invalidated altogether, or whether its enforcement is blocked only against particular parties.

The continuing battle over presidential power

The new effort follows the Supreme Court’s June 2025 ruling restricting so-called universal injunctions.

This case concerns a different mechanism: setting aside agency actions under the APA.

Its outcome could reach well beyond medical billing. The question is how broadly courts can protect against unlawful federal agency action — and how quickly a ruling requires the government to stop applying that action to everyone.

Source: pagenews.gr