The Supreme Court on Friday limited the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, handing President Donald Trump a partial victory in his legal battle to implement a controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship.
In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the majority ruled that the district courts exceeded their power by issuing sweeping universal injunctions. The case was not argued on the merits of the birthright citizenship order, meaning this ruling does not directly resolve the underlying 14th Amendment dispute raised by Democratic-led state plaintiffs and noncitizen parents.
The decision in Trump v. CASA arrives amid a mounting legal standoff over Trump’s second-term use of executive power. Federal courts issued at least 25 nationwide injunctions, also known as universal injunctions, against Trump administration policies between Jan. 20 and late April, blocking policies ranging from immigration enforcement to education reforms. Six months into Trump’s second term, judges have issued more nationwide injunctions than they issued during the entire eight-year Obama administration.
Trump’s legal team has described the trend as an “epidemic” of judicial overreach that has paralyzed the president’s executive authority.
Although the case began as a challenge to Trump’s order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants or temporary visa holders, the justices focused their May 15 oral arguments almost entirely on the legality and reach of the court orders blocking it.
Legal experts on both sides viewed the case as a critical test of whether a single federal judge can block a presidential order from taking effect nationwide — a tactic often used by opponents of both Trump and former President Joe Biden.
Trump’s then-Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris urged the justices to “declare that enough is enough” and restrict available relief to the actual plaintiffs in each case, rather than allowing unelected judges to “veto” policies effectively across all 50 states.
Nationwide injunctions were virtually nonexistent before the 1960s but have surged in use, in part due to the influx of presidents issuing more and more executive orders with each passing presidency. Just six were issued during former President George W. Bush’s presidency, 12 under former President Barack Obama, and 64 during Trump’s first term, according to the Capitol Research Center.
Trump allies have argued that the broad powers district court judges have to impose nationwide injunctions encourage litigants to engage in judge-shopping, which occurs when they seek out venues with judges who are potentially sympathetic to their causes, to undermine uniform application of federal law.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a 2020 concurrence, warned that “a single successful challenge can stop a policy cold.”
Still, not all justices appeared ready during oral arguments last month to curtail lower courts’ abilities to impose nationwide injunctions.
Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett, who are typically on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, expressed concern during arguments that limiting injunctive relief could allow potentially unconstitutional policies to stay in place for months or years, particularly when acting quickly may be critical.
The underlying merits dispute in the CASA case centers on whether the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. The plaintiffs argue it does, while the Trump administration contends that children of two noncitizen parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the key phrase in the Constitution that the Trump administration would like to interpret differently.
SUPREME COURT MAKES TRUMP WAIT ON KEY DECISIONS
Although the justices did not weigh in on the merits of the 14th Amendment claims in this case, they are likely to take up the issue in the near future. At least four federal district courts have rejected the Trump administration’s interpretation of birthright citizenship, and three federal appeals courts have upheld those rulings.
This is a developing story and will be updated.