Written By: Alyssa Acunto
Background
On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Trump v. CASA, Inc. — the case concerning Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship (“the Order”). The Order states that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must not be construed as to automatically grant citizenship to all people born on U.S. soil. Rather, only those who are born to parents lawfully and permanently in the United States are to receive the benefits of United States citizenship.
To be clear, the merits of this case are not being brought to the Court, that is, birthright citizenship as afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment is not being reconsidered at this time. The narrow question presented is whether it is within the courts’ power to issue universal injunctions. A universal injunction is a court order that is applied nationwide as opposed to only within the bounds of the issuing court’s geographical or personal jurisdiction. Multiple district courts issued nationwide injunctions blocking the Order from taking effect, and the Trump administration is now questioning the power of these lower courts to address the injury of a complaining party on such a broad scale.
The Administration’s Arguments
The administration’s primary concern during oral argument centered around a federal court’s Article III power to redress a complaining party’s injury. The administration argued that a court’s remedy must be limited to the complaining party and that universal injunctions exceed this limiting principle of the Judiciary.
In order for non-parties who would have collaterally benefitted from a nationwide injunction to receive relief, they must bring a claim themselves or pursue litigation through Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — a class action. However, the administration was clear that if a class action were filed, they would likely attempt to contend the class certification, raising red flags for various justices.
The States’ Arguments
The State of New Jersey represented the states and cities listed as respondents to this appeal and focused on the uncertainty that would result from an injunction with borders. They raised questions of practical administrability that are seemingly unanswerable without a nationwide injunction.
Who would bear the burden of social services costs? Who qualifies for social services? How are benefits programs going to be administered if these babies do not have Social Security numbers? Does citizenship turn on and off as people cross state lines? How is state sovereignty affected if national citizenship is recognized by one state but not another? If Rule 23 is the only available route, and this device does not apply to state litigation, what recourse is available at the state level?
The states do not assert that nationwide injunctions are always acceptable, rather they may be used in narrow circumstances where (1) alternative remedies are not practically or legally workable, (2) congress has authorized it, or (3) alternative avenues for nonparty relief are not practically or legally available.
Additionally, the states highlight the merits of the case. Birthright citizenship as it has been understood prior to this EO is both embedded in the Constitution and established precedent by the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision, holding that anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ nationality or citizenship status, is a United States citizen. Though this is not the immediate question presented to the Court, if this injunction is stayed, the Order will take effect and run directly contrary to these principles.
The Court’s Response
Some of the more conservative members of the bench have a known distaste for universal injunctions, yet the Court as a whole appears skeptical that this is the appropriate case to bar the use of these judicial tools. Justices mentioned “taking a peek at the merits” in order to determine the appropriate relief for the injured parties, and in doing so, this seemed to sway them against imposing a brightline rule on universal injunctions.
Multiple justices on both ends of the political spectrum were wary of the ground-level applications of the Order. Justice Kavanaugh questioned “how [is the Order] going to work — what do hospitals do with a newborn, what do states do with a newborn? [The agencies are] only going to have 30 days to do this. Do you think they can get it together in time?”
Justice Sotomayor ruminated on the fact that the administration’s proposed Rule 23 avenue will take time to get back to the Supreme Court, as it may take years before the Court hears the merits of this case. The administration appeared hesitant to accept defeat from any court other than the Supreme Court, as they stressed the importance of percolation amongst lower courts and conceded they were likely to contend any class certification pursuant to a Rule 23 action. So, if the nationwide injunctions are stayed and the administration is only certain to follow an order from the High Court, what are injured parties to do in the meantime?
It would not be surprising if the Court ruled to limit the use of nationwide injunctions in its decision. However, if so, it is likely the Court will carve out a narrow exception in this case, persuaded against a brightline ban by the notable merits at issue. For instance, the Court may choose to enumerate specific circumstances under which a universal injunction is appropriate. The decision is to be released within the next couple of months, and regardless of how the Court rules, it is expected to have great implications for the balance of powers between the Executive and Judiciary.
Sources
Andrew Chung et al., US Supreme Court grapples with Trump bid to restrict birthright citizenship, Reuters (May 15, 2025, 7:20 PM), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-hear-trump-bid-restrict-birthright-citizenship-2025-05-15/.
Casa, Inc. v. Trump, 763 F. Supp. 3d 723 (D. Md. 2025).
Exec. Order No. 14,160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 29, 2025).
Melissa B. Robinson, High Court Wary of Trump Birthright Citizenship Curbs: The Brief, Bloomberg L. (May 15, 2025, 2:04 PM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/high-court-wary-of-trump-citizenship-limits?context=search&index=8.
Strict Scrutiny, Are Trump Administration Officials in Criminal Contempt?, Crooked Media, at 37:00 (Apr. 21, 2025) (downloaded using Spotify).
Strict Scrutiny, Will the Courts let Trump End Birthright Citizenship?, Crooked Media, at 31:00 (May. 19, 2025) (downloaded using Spotify).
Transcript of Oral Argument, Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884 (argued May 15, 2025).
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898).