In a closely watched decision issued on June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884, that federal district courts lacked authority to issue universal (nationwide) injunctions blocking enforcement of federal policies. While the decision did not resolve the underlying constitutional challenge to President Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship, it directly affects how policy will be litigated moving forward.

The decision restricts a growing trend of district courts halting immigration-related executive orders on a national scale, reinforcing the principle that injunctive relief must be limited to the actual parties before the court. Further guidance from the Trump administration is expected to follow, outlining new procedures restricting birthright citizenship to only biological children born to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful permanent residents.

Quick Hits

• On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal district courts lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal policies, impacting how immigration-related executive orders are litigated.
• The decision, which arose from challenges to President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, which restricts birthright citizenship to children born to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, emphasized that injunctive relief must be limited to the actual parties before the court.
• While the ruling did not address the constitutionality of the executive order itself, it significantly alters the landscape of immigration litigation by requiring plaintiffs seeking broad relief to pursue class action procedures rather than universal injunctions.

Background

The Supreme Court’s ruling arises from challenges to President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, which narrowed the scope of birthright citizenship. The order specifically bars children born in the United States from acquiring automatic citizenship if neither parent was a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. Children born to nonimmigrant visa holders, including but not limited to participants in the Visa Waiver Program, F-1 students, and B-1, B-2, H-1B, H-4, L-1, L-2, E-1, E-2, E-3, TN, and O-1 visa holders, would not be granted birthright citizenship under this Executive Order.

The plaintiffs, including individuals, organizations, and state governments, alleged that the order violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and federal nationality laws. Multiple federal district courts issued sweeping injunctions preventing the government from enforcing the policy nationwide. The government appealed, contending that the universal injunctions exceeded the traditional equitable authority of the courts, and in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court agreed. Drawing on principles of equity rooted in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court emphasized that remedies granted by federal courts must align with those “traditionally accorded by courts of equity” at the time of the nation’s founding. The Court concluded that while universal injunctions may address systemic issues efficiently, such policy considerations cannot override the statutory limitations on judicial power. Although the Court’s ruling focused on the remedy, not the constitutionality of the Executive Order on birthright citizenship, it represents a substantial change in how recent immigration policy changes may be challenged in court.

Analysis and Impact

The Court did not rule on whether the executive order’s challenge to the interpretation of birthright citizenship violated the Citizenship Clause or the Nationality Act. Further, the decision defers to the lower courts as to whether to narrow their injunctions on this issue. However, this ruling has significant implications for ongoing and future immigration litigation, particularly cases involving constitutional challenges to executive immigration actions. The Court emphasized that plaintiffs seeking broad relief for groups of similarly situated individuals must do so through class action procedures, rather than through universal injunctions. For families directly affected by the executive order’s birthright citizenship restrictions, this means that only those who are parties to the litigation may receive injunctive relief. Others would need to file separate suits or seek to be included in a certified class action to halt enforcement.

Ultimately, the underlying issue restricting birthright citizenship by the executive order remains unresolved, and the federal courts must continue to address the constitutional merits of that issue in future proceedings.