Trump Administration Urges Supreme Court to Limit Judges’ Power to Strike Down Federal Rules

The Trump administration has requested that the U.S. Supreme Court decide whether federal judges have the authority to completely strike down federal agency rules. In a 29-page petition docketed on October 14, 2026, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that federal law governing administrative agencies does not give courts the power to erase entire regulations from the books.

The dispute reaches the high court following a legal battle over federal regulations designed to enforce the No Surprises Act, a 2022 law intended to protect patients from unexpected emergency and out-of-network healthcare bills. The administration is asking the justices to establish firm boundaries on how far lower courts can go when invalidating federal agency actions.

The Origins of the Medical Billing Dispute

The legal fight began when several organizations—including the Texas Medical Association, a hospital, and four air ambulance companies—filed lawsuits challenging rules issued by three federal departments. The Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and the Department of the Treasury created the regulations to implement key sections of the No Surprises Act.

After a federal district court in Texas ruled for the challengers, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed part of that decision. However, the full 5th Circuit later stepped in and vacated several challenged provisions. In an opinion joined by nine judges, the appellate court rejected government warnings that throwing out the rules would create practical problems for patients seeking protection from surprise charges while regulators rewrite the regulations.

Arguments Against Nationwide Judicial Orders

In the government’s petition to the Supreme Court, Sauer pointed to a 2025 decision, Trump v. CASA, where the justices ruled that courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions. Sauer argued that the court’s reasoning in that ruling applies equally to vacating agency actions. Under the 5th Circuit’s ruling, Sauer noted, regulations are wiped out for everyone “at the behest of a handful of plaintiffs.”

The administration warned that allowing courts to vacate rules nationwide encourages plaintiffs to shop for favorable courts. Sauer stated that the practice gives district court rulings the widespread effect usually reserved for Supreme Court decisions. Additionally, the government argued that nationwide cancellations force federal courts to resolve complex legal issues on emergency schedules without complete briefing.

What This Means for Patients and Businesses

This case could determine whether a single lawsuit by a private group or business can overturn federal protections for the entire country. If the Supreme Court limits court power to vacate agency rules, federal regulations would generally remain active for the public while legal disputes play out for individual parties.

For ordinary people and healthcare consumers, the outcome could impact how consumer-protection laws like the No Surprises Act are applied in practice. Currently, the medical groups and ambulance companies opposing the government must file their response with the Supreme Court by November 13, 2026, though that deadline could be extended.

When Legal Advice May Help

Navigating federal agency rules and billing disputes under consumer protection laws can be complicated. Individuals facing unexpected medical bills or businesses affected by federal administrative rulings may benefit from consulting an attorney to understand their legal rights and options under current court orders.

This article is general information based on SCOTUSblog and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 17, 2026.