The Supreme Court recently issued a landmark decision about the use of blanket nationwide injunctions handed down by an individual judge. Although the cases putatively involved birthright citizenship, the decision became an issue about injunctions and the scope of a judge’s power.
Issues about birthright citizenship will arise in future cases because the Supreme Court struck down the previously issued nationwide injunctions.
Seek advice from an experienced immigration attorney to learn more about where the law currently stands.
Overview of Trump v. CASA
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship—denying automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. whose mothers are undocumented or legally present temporarily and whose fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
CASA de Maryland, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, expecting mothers, and 18 states (including New Jersey and Washington) filed lawsuits in federal district courts across Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts.
Three federal judges issued universal (nationwide) preliminary injunctions blocking the executive order’s enforcement everywhere and not just in districts with active challenges.
The government appealed, consolidating the cases into Trump v. CASA, and asked the Supreme Court to stay the injunctions, limiting them to specific plaintiffs. The Supreme Court decided to take the case, although it was not immediately apparent whether they intended to address the Constitutional issue of birthright citizenship.
During the oral arguments, it became very apparent that the Court was focused on the issue of nationwide injunctions and whether they should be limited.
The Supreme Court’s Decision in Trump v. CASA
In Trump v. CASA, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the growing controversy surrounding the use of blanket (nationwide or universal) injunctions—court orders that halt a federal policy or action across the entire country, even for individuals who are not part of the lawsuit.
The Court did not rule on the merits of the Trump administration’s birthright citizenship policy but instead focused on whether the lower courts had the authority to block the policy nationwide.
The Supreme Court limited the scope of federal injunctions, holding that such broad relief is only appropriate when necessary to fully protect the plaintiffs involved in a particular case.
In Trump v. CASA, the plaintiffs included an immigrant advocacy group and several individuals challenging a presidential proclamation that sought to deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants. The lower courts issued a nationwide injunction halting enforcement of the proclamation.
However, the Supreme Court vacated that order, stating that courts must tailor relief to the scope of the harm faced by the actual plaintiffs.
The decision reflects the Court’s concern that nationwide injunctions interfere with the normal development of legal disputes in different jurisdictions, potentially preventing issues from being fully explored through conflicting rulings.
By limiting the reach of injunctions, the Court emphasized the importance of the traditional judicial process and discouraged lower courts from halting federal actions beyond the needs of specific litigants.
While the ruling did not resolve the constitutional question of birthright citizenship, it significantly impacts how future legal challenges to federal policies may proceed. Plaintiffs will now face greater hurdles in obtaining broad-based relief, and federal policies may remain in effect for most of the country even while legal battles continue. This may lead to inconsistent enforcement of federal laws depending on geography and judicial venue.
The Court Did Not Rule on the Merits of the Overall Case
The recent Supreme Court ruling was not a decision on the merits of whether birthright citizenship is a Constitutional right. The Court only took the case to address the matter of nationwide injunctions and to issue a precedential decision for that matter alone.
The issue of birthright citizenship is still making its way through the court system. The lower courts may eventually decide it, and the legal issue will eventually reach the Supreme Court. Thus, those who are claiming birthright citizenship will still need to see how this issue plays out in the court system.
What May Happen to Birthright Citizenship After Trump v. CASA
There are a number of potential outcomes for birthright citizenship as the merits of these cases are heard in various federal district courts around the country. Now that nationwide injunctions are limited, courts may issue narrower injunctions that protect only the named plaintiffs, while the policy could remain in effect elsewhere.
Without a nationwide block, birthright citizenship may be denied in some jurisdictions but not in others. This can create legal chaos, with children born in different states having different citizenship rights based on court rulings or lack thereof.
Legal authorities expect that the patchwork system will eventually result in a Supreme Court decision to accept a single case that challenges the Executive Order.
If conflicting decisions emerge from lower courts, the Supreme Court may eventually decide whether restricting birthright citizenship by executive order is constitutional. That future ruling would have national implications and could redefine the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
How an Immigration Lawyer Can Help You
In the wake of Trump v. CASA, an experienced immigration lawyer is more critical than ever. The Supreme Court’s decision to limit the reach of nationwide injunctions means that harmful immigration policies may remain in effect in many areas, even if they are being challenged elsewhere.
An immigration attorney can help you understand how shifting policies may affect your specific case, especially if you are concerned about birthright citizenship or the legal status of family members.
An Immigration Attorney Is Standing By
A lawyer can guide you through legal options based on your location, help prepare documentation to establish status or citizenship, and represent you in proceedings with immigration authorities. They also stay up to date on rapidly changing regulations, ensuring you receive informed and timely advice. In this uncertain legal climate, individualized representation is key.
What applies in one jurisdiction may not apply in another. A knowledgeable immigration attorney can protect your rights and help you handle the evolving immigration system.