President Donald Trump Asks US Supreme Court to Strip Another Power Federal Judges Use Against His Agenda

President Donald Trump is asking the US Supreme Court to limit federal judges' power to set aside unlawful agency rules, a move that could allow his administration to continue enforcing them against people who did not join a successful legal challenge, according to Reuters.

The appeal follows Trump's 2025 Supreme Court victory limiting nationwide injunctions. That ruling left intact a separate power courts have long exercised under the Administrative Procedure Act to set aside unlawful agency rules. The Justice Department now wants the justices to narrow that authority too.

Why Trump Wants to Limit Federal Judges' Power

Reuters covered the appeal on Saturday. The Justice Department argues that judges should be able to block enforcement of a federal agency rule only for the people or groups that sued, rather than extend that protection to everyone affected by it.

The distinction concerns the reach of a court's decision after a rule has been found unlawful. Under the administration's proposed approach, a successful challenge would protect the plaintiffs, but other people and organisations could remain subject to the same rule while litigation continues.

'It would take longer for challengers to get unlawful regulations removed from the books,' Ronald Levin, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told Reuters.

His assessment addresses a consequence of the proposed restriction, rather than an outcome the Supreme Court has already ordered in this case.

Medical Billing Case Brings Trump Before the US Supreme Court

The dispute began with a challenge by Texas medical providers and others to a rule intended to curb surprise medical bills. A federal appeals court struck down parts of the rule nationwide, according to Reuters.

The Justice Department is challenging how broadly that decision applies. Its request concerns whether the court's action should protect only those who brought the case or also prevent enforcement against people and groups outside the lawsuit.

The nationwide effect of the appeals court's decision is therefore central to the appeal. The administration's argument would leave successful challengers with protection against enforcement, while allowing the agency to continue applying the rule to others during the litigation.

This is a proposed limit on the scope of judicial relief. The appeal itself does not establish that the justices have accepted the Justice Department's position.

Experts Examine Federal Judges' Power Over Agency Rules

Siding with Trump 'would give more flexibility to the executive branch,' Aditya Bamzai, a University of Virginia administrative law expert, told Reuters.

Bamzai explained that agencies could keep enforcing rules against everyone except the plaintiffs, potentially for years as litigation proceeds. His comments describe how the administration could benefit from a ruling in its favour.

The experts' observations focus on different consequences of the same proposal. Bamzai identified the flexibility it could afford agencies, while Levin highlighted the additional time challengers could face before unlawful regulations are removed.

For Levin, setting aside a rule more broadly can sometimes be necessary.

'When an agency adopts a rule that has been held to be unlawful, sometimes the only sensible solution is to wipe it off the books,' Levin told Reuters.