In the last decade, nationwide injunctions have emerged as essential judicial tools for preventing constitutional violations from taking effect on a national scale. District courts halted challenged executive orders and laws before they could inflict broad harm. But in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025), the Supreme Court sharply curtailed that authority, holding that district courts may issue relief only to the specific plaintiffs before them. [1] By restricting nationwide injunctions, the Court in Trump v. CASA effectively limits the judiciary’s capacity to serve as a structural check on executive overreach, reframing the role of district courts from protectors of nationwide constitutional rights to narrowly constrained arbiters of local disputes. This article argues that the shift away from nationwide injunctions threatens both judicial coherence and equal protection under the law. The argument analyzes how the majority’s formalism narrows equitable power and how the decision fragments constitutional enforcement.