Background on The Case
The case of Trump v. CASA Inc. the Supreme Court examined a challenge to Executive Order 14160, issued by President Trump on January 20, 2025. This order aided the government in deporting undocumented immigrants by declaring that there are key instances in which birthright citizenship does not apply; either when the mother was unlawfully present and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident, or when the mother had only temporary legal status and the father also lacked U.S. citizenship or residency. CASA, an immigrant rights group, sued the administration, arguing that the order was unconstitutional. A lower court agreed and created a nationwide injunction, limiting the executive order from being enforced across the entire country.
What is a Nationwide Injunction?
Nationwide injunctions typically occur when a court ruling temporarily halts the federal government from being able to enforce law or policy. In recent years, these rulings have become more frequent in order to quickly stop harmful or unconstitutional policies. Policy arguments for injunctions state that they protect certain rights and allow for the judicial system to reach a binding rule more quickly. However, policy arguments against injunctions include that they give too much power to individual judges when the ramifications of their decisions affect millions.
The Ruling
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the notion of nationwide injunctions. The majority opinion said that lower courts do not have the authority to block federal laws and policies for the entire country, but instead simply for those involved in the case. The Court emphasized that judges should only decide the cases in front of them, arguing that nationwide injunctions give individual judges too much power. The decision did not rule on whether Executive Order 14160 is constitutional or not, or whether birthright citizenship can be limited. Instead, the ruling focused on the legal process, stating that courts cannot stop a federal policy nationwide unless the case has reached the Supreme Court. While CASA and others may continue fighting the policy in courts elsewhere, they cannot stop it from being enforced across the country while the case is ongoing.
Birthright Citizenship Implications
Although the Supreme Court did not rule directly on the constitutionality of the Executive Order, the decision still has serious implications for birthright citizenship. By blocking the use of nationwide injunctions, the Court has made it more difficult for immigrant rights groups to stop federal policies before they take effect. In the past, a single lawsuit could pause a controversial policy for the entire country while the courts reviewed it. Now, that is no longer possible. As a result, EO 14160 could be enforced in some states while being challenged in others. This could lead to a patchwork of legal protections, with people being considered citizens in some states but not others. However, the Supreme Court did carve out other pathways for those trying to challenge an executive order. One of the main ways is a class-action lawsuit, where multiple plaintiffs represent a large group of people. There is a 30 day waiting period before the executive order can be enforced, during which many groups are shifting their legal focus to class action lawsuits.
Conclusion:
While the Supreme Court did not directly decide the fate of birthright citizenship, its ruling in Trump v CASA Inc. has major consequences. By ending the use of nationwide injunctions, the Court has made it more difficult to block controversial federal policies. This leaves immigrants in a legally gray area, where protections may vary state by state. As EO 14160 moves forward, the fight to defend birthright citizenship will now depend on slower, more complex legal strategies.