The injunction would appear to make such a reprieve far less likely, although the question remains whether the Trump administration will seek a legislative deal that would raise the salary limit above the $23,660 that has prevailed since 2004, but below the Obama administration’s preferred level.

“There’s no question that this decision changes a number of different points of leverage over the future of the rule,” said David French, senior vice president for government relations at the National Retail Federation, which opposed the new rule. Mr. French added, however, that his group and many other business organizations were open to some increase in the limit.

“We’re 12 years past the last update,” he said.

Supporters of the regulation have observed that the politics of essentially withdrawing a planned salary increase from many workers could prove complicated for an incoming president elected on a message of improving workers’ economic circumstances.

Further complicating the picture is the fact that many large employers have already raised the pay of some employees over the new $47,476 limit, concluding that it would be more cost-effective than paying them overtime. It is rare for employers to reverse such pay increases, making large employers potentially sympathetic to an overtime compromise that would effectively extend the salary increase to some of their smaller rivals.

Tuesday’s ruling arose from a case filed by a coalition of 21 states, who argued that the administration had exceeded its statutory authority in raising the overtime salary limit so significantly. A large number of business groups filed a similar lawsuit, and the suits were later consolidated.

In his ruling, Judge Mazzant, whom President Obama appointed, agreed with that logic and appeared to go even further, suggesting that the administration lacked the authority even to establish a salary limit — which the Labor Department has raised repeatedly since Congress enacted the underlying legislation in 1938.

“The court’s decision suggests that the Department of Labor has no authority whatsoever to regulate a salary minimum,” said Allan S. Bloom, of the law firm Proskauer Rose. (Judge Mazzant pointed out in a footnote that he was not commenting generally on the legality of establishing a salary limit, however, only the particular increase that the plaintiffs had challenged.)

In a statement, the Labor Department defended how the rule was created.

“The department’s overtime rule is the result of a comprehensive, inclusive rule-making process, and we remain confident in the legality of all aspects of the rule,” the statement said.