Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Applicants v. CASA, Inc., et al.

The Supreme Court ruled that federal district courts generally lack the power to issue universal injunctions (court orders that block a law for everyone nationwide). The Court held that under the Judiciary Act of 1789, judges can only provide relief to the specific people or groups involved in the lawsuit. This decision partially stayed lower court orders that had blocked President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship.

This ruling makes it much harder for a single judge to stop a presidential policy across the entire country. For example, if a group in Maryland sues over an immigration rule, the judge can now only protect that specific group rather than stopping the rule for everyone in the U.S. This could lead to a 'patchwork' of laws where a policy is legal in some states but blocked in others.

For years, both political parties have used nationwide injunctions to freeze the policies of presidents they dislike. The Supreme Court is now pushing back, arguing that these broad orders have no historical basis in early American or English law. The Court wants to return to a system where legal relief is limited to the parties actually standing in the courtroom.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the 6-3 majority opinion, joined by the other conservative justices. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh each wrote concurring opinions (agreements with the result for different reasons), while Justice Sotomayor led the three liberal justices in a dissent.

“Federal courts possess only those equitable remedies traditionally accorded by courts of equity at the time of the founding.”

“The majority’s decision creates an existential threat to the rule of law by allowing the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not sued.”

The Supreme Court ended the practice of 'universal injunctions,' ruling that local judges can only block executive orders for the specific people suing them.

The case now returns to lower courts to see if narrower orders can protect the plaintiffs without blocking the entire birthright citizenship policy. Legal experts expect a surge in class-action lawsuits as groups try to find new ways to achieve nationwide protection. Meanwhile, the Trump administration can begin enforcing its citizenship order against anyone not covered by a specific court stay.

The case centered on whether a single district judge has the authority to block a federal executive order for the entire country. The government argued that judges should only protect the specific people who filed the lawsuit.

People who are not part of a specific lawsuit may still be subject to controversial executive orders. They would need to join a class-action suit or file their own case to get protection.

Judges must now ensure that their injunctions (court orders) are tailored to provide 'complete relief' only to the plaintiffs. They cannot block a law nationwide just because it might be unconstitutional.

Lower courts must now determine if narrower injunctions, such as those limited to specific states, can protect the plaintiffs. They will also look at whether the Administrative Procedure Act offers other ways to set aside the rule.

The Court is continuing to limit the power of lower courts to interfere with executive branch actions. This reflects a 'formalist' approach that relies strictly on historical legal powers from the 1700s.