Supreme Court Ruling on Nationwide Injunctions Leaves Fiduciary Rule Stays Intact 

In a major decision released Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal district courts likely lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions in certain types of cases—significantly curbing a powerful judicial tool often used to block presidential actions on a broad scale—the ruling does not affect pending litigation regarding the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule. 

In the 6-3 ruling in a series of cases from three different courts challenging President Trump’s order repealing birthright citizenship, the high court explicitly clarified that its decision on June 27 does not apply to actions brought under the Administrative Procedure Act —a distinction that leaves in place nationwide stays issued by Texas courts delaying the 2024 fiduciary rule. 

“Nothing we say today resolves the distinct question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action,” the court stated in its ruling.  

The decision to limit lower courts’ use of universal injunctions does not focus on the issue of the citizenship but instead focused on whether federal courts have the authority to issue injunctions that apply nationwide. 

This clarification around the Administrative Procedure Act is directly relevant to ongoing litigation over the 2024 fiduciary rule—a Department of Labor regulation that redefines when financial professionals must act in clients’ best interests when advising on retirement accounts. In two separate lawsuits brought in Texas, federal district courts issued nationwide stays of the rule’s effective date, arguing that the rule may violate the APA. 

In fact, the administration itself acknowledged in its Supreme Court filings that APA cases involve different legal questions. As stated in its initial brief: 

“Members of this Court have debated whether the APA authorizes courts to vacate agency action universally… These cases do not present that distinct question because the President’s actions are not reviewable under the APA,” the court stated. 

Friday’s decision has significant implications for the reach of judicial power—but for the retirement industry observers and fiduciary rule opponents—the court has left the nationwide pause on the fiduciary rule untouched. 

Whether the fiduciary rule survives remains to be seen despite Friday’s ruling. 

The Department of Labor in April sought and was granted an additional stay of the in the fiduciary rule cases, due to the change in presidential administration and the time required for new DOL leadership to become familiar with issues presented by the litigation. The abeyance was granted until June 16, 2025. No other orders have been filed in either of the cases regarding advancing or resolving the litigation.