Injunctions against agency action
✅ What Is an Injunction Against Agency Action?
An injunction is a court order that directs a party — in this case, a government agency — to do or refrain from doing something. Injunctions are used in administrative law when individuals, organizations, or states seek to block or compel agency action on the grounds that it is:
Unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Unconstitutional
Arbitrary and capricious
In violation of statutory authority
🧑⚖️ Legal Basis for Injunctions Against Agencies
APA § 702: Grants a right to judicial review for any person “suffering legal wrong” because of agency action.
APA § 705: Authorizes courts to postpone the effective date of agency action.
APA § 706: Allows courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
🔍 Types of Injunctions
Preliminary Injunction: Temporary relief before final ruling.
Permanent Injunction: Long-term relief granted after a full hearing.
Nationwide Injunction: Stops an agency rule or policy nationwide, not just for the plaintiffs (controversial in recent years).
⚖️ Key Cases Involving Injunctions Against Agency Action
1. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (2008)
555 U.S. 7
Facts: The U.S. Navy was using sonar that potentially harmed marine mammals. NRDC sought a preliminary injunction to halt exercises.
Issue: When is an injunction appropriate in environmental challenges to agency action?
Holding: The Court held that the public interest in national defense outweighed potential environmental harm.
Standard for Injunction (4-part test):
Likelihood of success on the merits
Likelihood of irreparable harm
Balance of equities
Public interest
Significance: Raised the bar for preliminary injunctions and emphasized a strict standard, especially where national interests are involved.
2. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms (2010)
561 U.S. 139
Facts: Opponents of genetically modified alfalfa sued the USDA for failing to conduct a full environmental review. The lower court issued a nationwide injunction.
Issue: Was a broad injunction appropriate when less drastic remedies existed?
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled the injunction was overbroad and unnecessary because plaintiffs hadn’t shown irreparable harm.
Significance:
Reinforced that injunctions must be narrowly tailored.
Courts must justify injunctive relief with the 4-part Winter test.
3. Department of Commerce v. New York (2019)
588 U.S. ___
Facts: The Trump administration attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. States sued, alleging the agency acted in bad faith.
Issue: Was the Commerce Department’s decision subject to judicial review and injunctive relief?
Holding: The Court held the action was reviewable, and the agency had given a pretextual rationale, violating APA norms.
Outcome: A district court injunction was upheld, blocking the question.
Significance: Shows courts may enjoin agency actions when the rationale is dishonest or insufficient.
4. Texas v. United States (DACA Case, S.D. Tex. 2021)
Facts: Texas and other states sued to stop the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, arguing it was unlawfully created.
Issue: Was DACA lawfully implemented without formal rulemaking?
Holding: The court found DACA unlawful under the APA and issued a partial injunction preventing new applicants but allowing existing protections to continue.
Significance:
Illustrates a partial injunction balancing harm to both sides.
Courts have the discretion to craft targeted relief, not necessarily full suspension.
5. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump (9th Cir. 2018)
Facts: The Trump administration issued a rule denying asylum to migrants who crossed the border illegally. NGOs sued.
Issue: Was the rule inconsistent with existing asylum laws?
Holding: The rule violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. A nationwide injunction was issued.
Significance:
One of many cases where nationwide injunctions were used against controversial executive policies.
Sparked debate over the proper scope of injunctions.
6. FDA v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2020)
(District & Appellate Courts)
Facts: A COVID-era FDA requirement made it hard to obtain abortion medication. Plaintiffs sought an injunction to suspend the rule.
Outcome: The court issued an injunction preventing the enforcement of the in-person requirement.
Significance:
Showed how emergency conditions (pandemic) may justify injunctions.
Also reflects healthcare-related administrative injunctions.
7. National Mining Association v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C. 1998)
Facts: The Corps issued a rule redefining "fill material" under the Clean Water Act. Mining groups challenged the rule.
Holding: The district court granted a nationwide injunction, holding the rule was beyond statutory authority.
Significance:
Demonstrates injunctions based on ultra vires (beyond legal power) actions.
Reinforces courts' role in checking overbroad agency interpretation.
📋 Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Relief Granted | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|
| Winter v. NRDC (2008) | Navy sonar vs. marine harm | Injunction denied | Strict standard; national interest trumps environmental harm |
| Monsanto v. Geertson (2010) | GMO seed rule | Injunction vacated | Overbroad injunctions disfavored |
| Dept. of Commerce v. NY (2019) | Census citizenship question | Injunction upheld | Dishonest agency rationale invalid |
| Texas v. U.S. (DACA, 2021) | DACA legality under APA | Partial injunction | Injunctions can be limited/specific |
| East Bay Sanctuary (2018) | Asylum rule inconsistent with law | Nationwide injunction | Broad injunction allowed where law clearly violated |
| FDA v. ACOG (2020) | Medication abortion during COVID | Temporary injunction | Emergencies may justify injunctive relief |
| Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Corps (1998) | Clean Water Act rule exceeds authority | Nationwide injunction | Courts can strike down rules that exceed statutory bounds |
🧠 Key Legal Principles
Injunctions are equitable remedies — not automatic; they require careful balancing.
Courts apply the four-factor test from Winter to grant injunctive relief.
Injunctions must be narrowly tailored to address specific legal violations.
Nationwide injunctions are controversial; courts are split on their use.
Agencies must act within statutory limits and with procedural fairness, or their actions may be enjoined.
🎯 Final Thoughts
Injunctions are powerful tools for holding administrative agencies accountable, especially when:
Rulemaking is rushed, pretextual, or lacks proper authority.
Individual rights or statutory protections are clearly violated.
The action would cause irreparable harm if allowed to proceed.
Courts, however, are cautious and often require strong evidence, particularly when the injunction would block nationwide policies or disrupt major programs.
RELATED Blog
0 comments