In a landmark decision on June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to curtail the authority of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, a move that could significantly alter the landscape of federal judicial power and executive policymaking. The ruling, stemming from the case Trump v. CASA, is widely regarded as a procedural victory for the Trump administration, which has faced numerous legal challenges to its policies.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, emphasizing that federal courts should provide “complete relief” to plaintiffs without extending remedies universally. “Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete,” Barrett wrote, distinguishing between individual and universal relief. The decision allows for class-action lawsuits as a means to achieve broader protections but limits the scope of injunctions to the parties directly involved in a case.
The ruling has immediate implications for Executive Order 14160, issued by President Donald Trump, which seeks to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. While the Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of the executive order, it vacated the nationwide injunctions that had previously blocked its enforcement, leaving the matter to be resolved in lower courts.
Critics argue that the decision undermines judicial oversight and could lead to a fragmented application of constitutional rights. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, warned that the ruling could leave some U.S.-born children of immigrants stateless and set a precedent for broader rights limitations. “No right is safe,” Sotomayor asserted, emphasizing the potential for unequal access to constitutional protections across different jurisdictions.
Immigrant advocacy groups have expressed concern over the ruling’s impact on families and children. Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, stated, “This is a deeply troubling moment not only for immigrant families but for the legal uniformity that underpins our Constitution.” Lupe Rodríguez, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, echoed these sentiments, highlighting the potential for “discrimination, statelessness, and a fundamental erosion of rights.”
In response to the decision, organizations like CASA de Maryland have filed motions to certify classes of children potentially affected by Executive Order 14160, seeking to continue legal challenges through class-action lawsuits. The American Civil Liberties Union has also initiated new legal actions aimed at protecting birthright citizenship rights.
The ruling may also influence other policies previously halted by nationwide injunctions, including those related to sanctuary cities, refugee resettlement, and diversity programs. Legal experts anticipate a shift in litigation strategies, with a greater emphasis on class-action suits to achieve broader protections.
As the legal battles continue, the Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch, with far-reaching implications for the enforcement of federal policies and the protection of constitutional rights.
