(The Daily Signal)—The Supreme Court case Trump v. CASA cut right to the heart of the judicial insurrection, the trend of district court judges siding with leftist activists to block President Donald Trump’s policies through nationwide preliminary injunctions.
The court’s decision rightly struck down the judicial insurrection’s number one strategy, but that doesn’t mean rogue judges won’t find ways to block Trump’s attempt to keep his promises to the American people.
“Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court’s 6-3 majority. Yet nationwide or “universal” injunctions aim to block policies from impacting anyone.
Barrett ruled that since “nothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding,” nationwide injunctions violate the 1789 Judiciary Act.
Among other things, Barrett noted that these injunctions “operate asymmetrically,” with a plaintiff needing to win “just one suit to secure sweeping relief,” while the administration “must win everywhere.”
Many of the same groups that staffed and advised the Biden administration (which I expose in “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government”) have filed lawsuits to block Trump’s policies, choosing jurisdictions with more friendly judges in order to secure injunctions.
Barrett’s ruling marks a key win against such strategies, but the court’s opinion leaves open two ways for judges to block Trump’s policies, and the judicial insurrection has already tested a third strategy not condoned by the court.
Class Action Lawsuits
The court’s ruling did not affect class action lawsuits. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lays out circumstances in which many people can band together as a “class” to pursue a legal claim, and if a judge certifies the class, he or she may impose an injunction protecting the class.
“Putting the kibosh on universal injunctions does nothing to disrupt Rule 23’s requirements,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring opinion.
He warned, however, that “district courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23.”
If judges do so, Alito warned, “the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of ‘nationwide class relief,’ and today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.”
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that he suspects “these same judges will simply willy nilly certify classes of plaintiffs to get around this, ignoring the strict criteria that applies through the federal rule on class certification.”
“The Justice Department will then be right back in the courts of appeal, but this time disputing the legitimacy of the judges’ class certifications,” he noted.
The Administrative Procedure Act
The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 also provides a way for district court judges to block administration policies.
A footnote in Barrett’s ruling notes that “nothing we say today resolves the distinct question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action.”
Under 5 U.S. Code Section 706, a court reviewing federal agency action “shall … compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions to be” in one way or another “not in accordance with law.”
The Supreme Court has not laid out clear precedent about the limits of courts’ ability to vacate agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. If left-wing groups bring such lawsuits against the Trump administration, these cases may end up before the nation’s highest court.
Defying the Supreme Court
District court judges may also flatly defy the Supreme Court’s clear ruling against nationwide injunctions. It sounds insane, but I frankly can’t rule it out because it has already happened.
Last week, Massachusetts-based District Judge Brian Murphy openly defied the court. He had issued a temporary injunction on April 18, blocking the Trump administration from deporting illegal aliens to South Sudan. He issued a follow-up order on May 21, clarifying and enforcing the injunction.
The Supreme Court struck down his April 18 order on June 23, but he issued another order that same day, stating that the May 21 order remained in effect.
The Department of Homeland Security condemned Murphy’s “unprecedented defiance” of the Supreme Court, but his action makes a perverse kind of sense in the context of a judicial insurrection where judges take upon themselves the authority of the president of the United States.
An Ongoing Issue
While Trump v. CASA likely puts an end to nationwide preliminary injunctions at the district court level, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in his concurring opinion that the question remains whether “a major new federal statute, rule, or executive order can be enforced throughout the United States during the several-year interim period until its legality is finally decided on the merits.”
Kavanaugh noted that district courts may “grant or deny the functional equivalent of a universal injunction.” Nonprofits and the government may appeal the cases all the way to the Supreme Court, and he urged that the court “cannot hide in the tall grass.” On these issues, “it is often important for reasons of clarity, stability, and uniformity that this court be the decider.”
Kavanaugh noted that Trump v. CASA “will require district courts to follow proper legal procedures” when considering orders, and that’s a clear step toward sanity.
But mark my words, the judicial insurrection is far from over.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.