After Universal Injunctions: The Practical Perils of Trump v. CASA

On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order seeking to drastically limit birthright citizenship—a longstanding constitutional principle under which individuals born in the United States automatically acquire citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.^[1]  While many supporters of President Trump commended the order as a necessary protection against illegal immigration, constitutional law scholars on both sides of the political spectrum did not share this enthusiasm.^[2]  The executive order was widely understood to conflict with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which codifies statutory protections for birthright citizenship.^[3]  

These issues came to a head when three separate lawsuits, filed by a group of pregnant women whose children would be affected, two immigrants’ rights organizations, and twenty-two states, were consolidated into Trump v. CASA.^[4]  In light of this case, Americans must keep immigration issues at the forefront of public discourse and on their ballots.  All voters must hold the political conversation accountable.  When pundits and politicians shift their attention to the next preeminent issue in today’s news cycle, we must ensure immigration issues do not get buried and become an issue too easily ignored by future candidates.

Although the vast majority of scholars agreed that the executive order was unconstitutional, significant debate emerged over the appropriate remedy.^[5]  Three federal judges in the U.S. District Courts for Maryland, the Western District of Washington, and Massachusetts, held that the order was unlawful because it directly contravened the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship.^[6]  Each court issued a preliminary universal injunction, extending protection to all Americans affected by the unconstitutional order.^[7]  The federal government sought stays in the applicable appellate courts, arguing that any injunction should be narrowed to party-specific relief rather than applied nationwide.^[8]  The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari, and the case reached the Court in early 2025.^[9]

The Court held that federal courts lack the authority to issue “universal injunctions”—nationwide orders that extend relief beyond the parties before the court.^[10]  It reasoned that federal courts’ equitable authority is limited to relief that is necessary to “provide complete relief” to the parties before it.^[11]  Although the Court remanded the case for a determination of whether a broader injunction was required to afford “complete relief,” it substantially raised the evidentiary burden for obtaining such expansive remedies.^[12] 

Supporters of this ruling argue that it is justified because universal injunction grant relief to people who were not parties to the case and who may lack Article III Standing.^[13]  They also contend that such injunctions raise federalism and separation-of-powers concerns by allowing a single district court judge to effectively set nationwide policy, thereby usurping the executive branch’s authority to enforce laws uniformly across all jurisdictions.^[14]  Finally, supporters contend that universal injunctions encourage forum shopping, where plaintiffs strategically file in favorable jurisdictions to obtain nationwide relief, which undermines the federal court system’s integrity and prevents the development of diverse legal precedents across different circuits.^[15]

Critics of the Court’s ruling warn that it will lead to an exponential increase in litigation and poses serious modern-day practical issues, particularly in the current immigration enforcement climate.^[16]  Without a universal injunction blocking the executive order, undocumented immigrants who are not represented by the twenty-eight states that challenged the policy would be forced to file suit individually in federal court to assert their constitutionally protected right of birthright citizenship.^[17]  

Yet, the prevalence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers at or near courthouses creates a substantial chilling effect.  Requiring undocumented immigrants to come to court to assert their children’s constitutional rights makes them afraid to submit to the rule of law.^[18]  Such fear is well-founded, as immigration officers may summarily detain or deport individuals without due process of law.^[19]  As a result, families will be forced to litigate a constitutional principle that has been settled for centuries^[20], while simultaneously risking exposure to exceedingly presumptuous immigration enforcement.^[21]  Forcing citizens to assert a clear-cut constitutional right with immigration enforcers nearby contributes to a climate of fear for immigrants.  This appears to be a desired result for the Trump administration’s objectives, as it facilitates widespread deportation by requiring undocumented immigrants to appear in court and disclose their current undocumented status, to all present, including ICE.^[22]

In conclusion, this decision by the Supreme Court has significantly hindered District Courts’ ability to protect clear and obvious constitutional rights explicitly stated in the Constitution.  Though this decision will likely harm other critical areas, pursuing immigration reform must remain at the forefront of the political agenda.  All Americans should take steps to keep immigration reform on the ballot.  Voters should make immigration policy a litmus test for every candidate they support and demand affirmative, concrete commitments to protect those who now face heightened barriers to asserting their constitutional rights.^[23]

^[1] Exec. Order No. 14159, 90 Fed. Reg. 5137 (Jan. 20, 2025).

^[2] Cody Wofsy, Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order: What Happens Next, ACLU (Aug. 6, 2025), https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/trumps-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-what-happens-next [https://perma.cc/H8ZX-K2ZX].

^[3] U.S. Cᴏɴꜱᴛ. amend. XIV, § 1; Immigration Nationality Act of 1940, ch. 876, 54 Stat. 1137 (repealed 1952);  Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (1952).

^[4] Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025).

^[5] Id.

^[6] U.S. Cᴏɴꜱᴛ. amend. XIV, § 1.

^[7] CASA, 606 U.S. at 838 (2025).

^[8] Id. at 839.

^[9] Id. at 831.

^[10] Id. at 841.

^[11] Id. at 851.

^[12] Id.

^[13] U.S. Cᴏɴꜱᴛ. art. III, § 2; CASA, 606 U.S.

^[14] Id. at 862 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).

^[15] Id. at 855.

^[16] Mila Sohoni, Trump v. CASA and the Future of the Universal Injunction, Lᴇɢᴀʟ Aɢɢʀᴇɢᴀᴛᴇ (July 15, 2025), https://law.stanford.edu/2025/07/15/trump-v-casa-and-the-future-of-the-universal-injunction/. [https://perma.cc/94QC-4PSR].

^[17] Id. at 888 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).

^[18] Maria Cramer, ‘Silent and Hiding: ICE Actions at Courthouses Creating Climate of Fear for Immigrants, Advocates Say, Bᴏs. Gʟᴏʙᴇ (May 4, 2025), https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/05/04/metro/ice-court-detention-justice-immigration/ [https://perma.cc/DEZ5-WUEK].

^[19] Id.

^[20] CASA, 606 U.S. 879 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).

^[21] Cramer, supra note 18.

^[22] Jessica Bolter & Julia Gelatt, Trump Administration’s Expansion of Fast-track Deportation Powers is Transforming Immigration Enforcement, Mɪɢʀᴀᴛɪᴏɴ Pᴏʟ’ʏ Iɴsᴛ. (Sep. 25, 2025), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/trump-expedited-removal [https://perma.cc/7P4V-6CHF].

^[23] U.S. Cᴏɴꜱᴛ. amend. XIV, § 1.