Supreme Court Decision in CASA, Inc. Significantly Curtails Nationwide Injunctions and Permits Enforcement of Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

Trump v. CASA, Inc.: Supreme Court’s Ruling Set to Transform Litigation Strategies and Allow Implementation of Controversial Birthright Citizenship Executive Order.

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., holding that nationwide injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”¹ This case has significant implications for the development of litigation strategies challenging the constitutionality of federal executive actions. In addition, absent further judicial intervention within the next 30 days, it will permit implementation of Executive Order 14160, which purports to curtail birthright citizenship for some children born on U.S. soil (by reinterpreting the scope of birthright citizenship under the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution).

Background

Immediately after taking office on January 20, 2025, President Trump signed the Executive Order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 20, 2025). That Executive Order reinterprets the citizenship clause of the 14^th Amendment to exclude certain children who were born in the U.S. The relevant clause of the 14th Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.  The Executive Order reinterprets the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude children:

• Born in the U.S. to mothers who were unlawfully present, or lawfully present pursuant to a temporary admission, at the time of the child’s birth.
• Whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth.

Several parties filed separate suits to enjoin implementation of the Executive Order, resulting in three separate nationwide injunctions against its enforcement. While the initial suits challenged the constitutionality of the Executive Order, the Court in CASA did not rule on whether it is constitutional. Instead, the Court focused its attention narrowly on the legal question raised by the government in its emergency applications to partially stay the preliminary, nationwide injunctions: Do federal courts have the equitable authority to issue nationwide or “universal” injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789?

Holding

In reaching its decision, the Court discussed the traditional scope of equitable authority, which refers to fairness-based remedies that do not include monetary relief. Equitable Remedy, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024 Westlaw).  The Court emphasized that the authority is not freewheeling; instead, the grant of power only encompasses “equitable remedies ‘traditionally accorded by courts of equity’ at our country’s inception.”² Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, explained that England’s historic High Court of Chancery did not offer universal injunctions as remedies; rather, any remedies given were normally party-specific and did not include any remedies approaching the sweeping breadth of universal injunctions.³

Therefore, the Court concluded, the federal courts exceeded their judicial powers in issuing universal injunctions to halt implementation of the President’s Executive Order. Accordingly, the Court granted the government’s motion to partially stay those injunctions. The Executive Order will, as a result, go into effect 30 days following the Court’s decision, on July 27, 2025, absent additional judicial intervention.

What Tools Remain to Block Enforcement of Unconstitutional Executive Actions?

While the CASA holding significantly curtails the ability of federal judges to block federal executive actions through nationwide injunctions, it is possible that plaintiffs will expand the use of class action lawsuits as a different path to obtain injunctions with a nationwide effect.⁴ Additionally, Justice Kavanaugh suggested in his concurring opinion that plaintiffs could pursue nationwide relief by asking courts to set aside new agency rules under the Administrative Procedure Act.⁵

A group in Maryland has, in fact, already filed an application for a class-wide temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that, if granted, would prohibit enforcement of the Executive Order.⁶ However, the DOJ is likely to challenge the commonality and typicality of class members– two crucial elements that must be met for a lawsuit to proceed as a class action and for the Court to grant class-wide relief. This leaves open the question of whether class action proceedings will be viable as an alternative mechanism for obtaining class-wide (and, hence, nationwide) relief in most cases.

Can the Trump Administration Now Move Forward With Implementing the Executive Order Limiting Birthright Citizenship?

Although the Supreme Court has not made a decision about whether the Executive Order violates the U.S. Constitution, the Trump administration can move forward with implementing the Executive Order, and thereby potentially limit birthright citizenship, beginning 30 days after the date the decision was issued. However, the Executive Order will not have uniform nationwide legal effect.

Prior to the CASA decision, 22 states successfully sued the federal government over the executive order, effectively blocking its implementation in those states.⁷ It is likely that those same states will mount new challenges to the Executive Order following the Supreme Court’s guidance. As a result, the Executive Order is unlikely to go into effect, at least in the near future, for affected babies born in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Washington, D.C, and Wisconsin. This, of course, creates a situation where the Constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship may extend only to those born in certain states – the exact legal dilemma that the nationwide injunction was intended to remedy.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision is a win for the Trump administration, making it more difficult for lower courts to block implementation of unconstitutional executive actions. However, as suggested by the Justices themselves, other procedural mechanisms remain available for litigants to seek relief from federal district court judges that will still have nationwide impact. It also remains to be seen whether Executive Order 14160 will ever be fully implemented, since the Court has not yet passed upon its merits.