Trump v. CASA, Inc., Docket No. 24A884
Listen to the episode on Spotify
This ruling hinges on a carefully hidden part of a law passed back in 1789. It asks whether judges can block a government order for everyone, or only for the people who brought a lawsuit.
The Supreme Court said judges probably go too far when they issue “universal injunctions.” Those are orders that halt an action against anyone, not just the parties in the case. So the three lower court orders that had stopped President Trump’s rule on birthright citizenship will now apply only to the named plaintiffs.
The Justices did not weigh in on whether the executive order is good or bad. They focused only on the narrow question of how far a court’s power to issue remedies goes.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the decision, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Sotomayor, with Justices Kagan and Jackson, disagreed.
Summary of the Case
President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," directed federal agencies to withhold or revoke documentation of birthright citizenship for certain people born in the United States based on their parents' status. Three different groups—individual people, associations, and States—filed separate lawsuits claiming that the Order violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause and the Nationality Act of 1940. Each District Court found the Order likely unconstitutional and issued nationwide injunctions preventing its application to anyone in the country. The Government asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief, requesting that these injunctions apply only to the actual plaintiffs in the cases, not to everyone potentially affected. The Supreme Court granted partial stays, limiting the injunctions to protect only the plaintiffs themselves and sending the cases back to lower courts to craft narrower relief if needed.
Opinion of the Court
Justice Barrett, writing for the majority (which included Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh), ruled that nationwide injunctions likely exceed the authority federal courts have under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court explained that this Act only allows federal courts to grant remedies similar to those available in English courts at the time of America's founding. Looking at historical practice, the Court found that injunctions were typically limited to the specific parties in a case, not extended to everyone nationwide.
The majority criticized nationwide injunctions for several reasons: they bypass the procedural protections built into class-action lawsuits, they encourage "forum shopping" (where plaintiffs seek out favorable courts), and they intrude on the Executive Branch's authority. The Court emphasized that injunctive relief must be "no more burdensome than necessary" to provide "complete relief" to each plaintiff. Finding that the Government would likely suffer irreparable harm from overly broad injunctions, the Court granted partial stays limiting the injunctions to the actual plaintiffs.
Separate Opinions
Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Gorsuch) agreed that universal injunctions lack statutory authority and urged courts to carefully tailor remedies. Justice Alito (joined by Justice Thomas) emphasized the importance of enforcing limitations on third-party standing and strict requirements for class certification. Justice Kavanaugh noted that the Supreme Court often serves as the final decision-maker for emergency relief in high-stakes cases and cautioned against leaving such authority solely to lower courts.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson) dissented, emphasizing that birthright citizenship is a clear constitutional guarantee and arguing that courts have historically had the power to universally enjoin unlawful executive actions. She warned that limiting nationwide injunctions undermines courts' ability to defend fundamental rights and enables unlawful Executive action. Justice Jackson wrote separately to argue that the Judiciary's core function is to command universal compliance with the law, not just provide relief to specific parties. She contended that allowing the government to enforce potentially unlawful policies against non-plaintiffs undermines the rule of law and separation of powers.
The Battle Over Court Authority to Issue Nationwide Injunctions
At the heart of this case is a fundamental question: How far can federal courts go in blocking government actions they deem unlawful? The majority ruled that courts' power to issue injunctions comes from the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized remedies similar to those available in English courts at the nation's founding. These remedies included flexibility to handle group actions and prevent multiple lawsuits, but were typically limited to the parties directly involved in a case.
The majority emphasized that court orders must be tailored to provide complete relief to plaintiffs without unnecessary breadth. While modern class-action lawsuits remain a vehicle for group litigation, the Court held that they don't give judges unlimited power to block government policies nationwide.
The dissenters argued that courts have historically had broader authority to stop unconstitutional government actions entirely, not just as applied to specific plaintiffs. They warned that limiting this power could undermine the judiciary's role in protecting constitutional rights and allow potentially unlawful policies to continue against people who haven't filed lawsuits.
This ruling significantly impacts how courts can respond to controversial executive actions, potentially requiring more individuals to file their own lawsuits rather than benefiting from broad injunctions obtained by others.