When a policy affects thousands of people the same way, a class action lets a few of them sue for everyone. Since the Supreme Court ended universal injunctions in 2025, class actions have become the main way to obtain relief from immigration policies that reaches beyond the named plaintiffs. They also limit what individual class members can do on their own.

Quick Facts

  • Rule: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
  • Typical immigration class: Rule 23(b)(2), for injunctive or declaratory relief
  • (b)(2) classes are mandatory: members cannot opt out
  • Limit: 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) bars classwide injunctions against certain immigration provisions

How a class is certified

A class may be certified only if it is so numerous that joinder is impracticable, there are questions of law or fact common to the class, the named plaintiffs’ claims are typical, and they will adequately protect the class (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)). Most immigration classes then proceed under Rule 23(b)(2), which applies when the government has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that one injunction or declaration can resolve everyone’s claims. A (b)(2) class is mandatory: members cannot opt out (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 362 (2011)).

The statutory limit

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), lower courts may not enjoin or restrain the operation of certain parts of the immigration statute except as to an individual. The Supreme Court held that this bars classwide injunctions against those provisions (Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543 (2022)). Classes challenging other policies, such as agency pauses, benefit rules or the citizenship order, are not affected in the same way.

Classes after Trump v. CASA

When the Supreme Court held in June 2025 that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts’ authority, it left class actions available (Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025)). Recent examples:

  • Birthright citizenship. A New Hampshire court certified a nationwide class of children affected by Executive Order 14160 and enjoined the order as to the class. The Supreme Court affirmed (Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 (June 30, 2026)).
  • Diversity visas. On August 28, 2026, a federal court in California certified a subclass of all fiscal-year-2026 diversity-visa selectees and derivatives subject to the State Department’s pause, vacated the pause as arbitrary and capricious, and ordered the Department to resume adjudication (Medani v. Trump, No. 26-cv-6332 (N.D. Cal.)).
  • Alien Enemies Act. The Supreme Court barred removal under the Act of the named plaintiffs and members of a putative class while their case proceeded, and required meaningful notice (A.A.R.P. v. Trump (U.S. May 16, 2025) (per curiam)).

If you are a class member

Because a (b)(2) class is mandatory, members generally cannot bring separate suits for the same relief. Courts dismiss or transfer such suits under the first-to-file rule and direct members to the class court. In September 2026 two judges in the District of Columbia dismissed individual diversity-visa suits by Medani class members (Khimich v. Rubio, No. 26-cv-3046 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 2026); Turkenitz Gadasi v. Rubio, No. 26-cv-2549 (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2026)). The second court noted that individual relief would place one applicant ahead of thousands of class members facing the same deadline. Class members can raise their concerns with the class court, which can order supplemental relief.

Sources

Related Articles