On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on three related emergency applications—Trump v. CASA, Inc.(No. 24A884); Trump v. Washington (No. 24A885); and Trump v. New Jersey (No. 24A886)—arising from President Trump's January 20, 2025, executive order restricting birthright citizenship. As Dykema previously reported, the case raises a critical legal question: whether a federal district court may issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions and, if so, under what legal framework such relief is justified.
At the heart of the matter is whether a single district court's injunction can extend beyond its geographic jurisdiction or "single controversy" jurisdiction to affect individuals and interests not before that court. The implications of the Supreme Court's decision could significantly redefine the judiciary's role in reviewing and limiting executive action.
The Department of Justice, in its application for a partial stay of the injunction issued in the CASA case by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, challenges the validity of nationwide injunctions on several constitutional and structural grounds. The government argues that such injunctions improperly confer relief on nonparties, violate Article III standing requirements, exceed the traditional equitable powers of the judiciary, disrupt the federal system of appellate review by enabling trial courts to effectively set national policy, and undermine procedural mechanisms such as joinder and class actions that are designed to handle collective redress in a controlled manner.
Opposing these claims, the respondents—individuals and organizations seeking to enjoin enforcement of the executive order—argue that a nationwide injunction is essential to prevent irreparable harm. They also contend that the executive order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that anything short of a universal injunction would be inadequate to protect their rights. According to the respondents, uniform national application of the law on citizenship is constitutionally necessary, and nationwide injunctions remain consistent with Article III and long-standing equitable principles.
The oral argument revealed a range of perspectives among the Justices. Justice Thomas questioned whether nationwide injunctions have historical or doctrinal support. Justice Sotomayor expressed concern that limiting such broad relief to the Supreme Court would overwhelm the Court's docket, particularly when the executive order appears, in her view, to conflict with several existing precedents. Justices Barrett and Jackson explored the practical impact of curbing nationwide injunctions in a variety of real-world scenarios. Justice Gorsuch suggested that the Court might avoid ruling on the broader Article III issue if it could resolve the case on narrower grounds. Justice Alito asked whether it is problematic for each of the approximately 680 district court judges to hold the power to issue nationwide rulings. Justice Kagan voiced concern that invalidating nationwide injunctions could lead to a flood of duplicative individual lawsuits across the country. Justice Kavanaugh focused on the potential delays in executive policymaking that could result if such injunctions are no longer permitted.
The Court's decision in this case is poised to be one of the most consequential of the term. Should the Justices choose to invalidate or significantly limit the use of nationwide injunctions, the ruling may diminish what has been considered as one of the federal judiciary's most potent tools for restraining executive action.
A decision is expected later this term. Stay tuned for Dykema's analysis of the Court's opinion.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
