On 27 June, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Trump v. CASA, Inc. The case addressed whether federal courts are authorized under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions, which also have been referred to as nationwide injunctions. In short, the Court held they are not.
Factual background
CASA arose out of universal injunctions imposed by three district courts enjoining the Trump Administration from carrying out Executive Order No. 14160 (the "EO"). The EO "identifies the circumstances in which a person born in the United States is not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and is thus not recognized as an American citizen." Essentially, the EO provides it is no longer the policy of the United States to accept documentation of citizenship if their father is not a United States citizen or a lawful permanent resident at the time of the person's birth and: (1) the person's mother was unlawfully in the United States; or (2) the person's mother was lawfully – but only temporarily – in the United States.
The EO was challenged in three federal district courts on the ground it violated the "Citizenship Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." In each case, the district court entered a universal preliminary injunction preventing the EO from being applied to anyone in the United States. The Trump Administration appealed, arguing that the injunctions were too broad and should have been applied only to the parties before the courts. The Supreme Court granted review to determine that limited question and has now concluded that federal district courts are not permitted to issue universal injunctions.
Decision
The basis for the Court's decision is the scope of authority granted to federal courts by the Judiciary Act. That law endows federal courts with jurisdiction over "all suits … in equity." The Court previously held that this grant of jurisdiction "encompasses only those sorts of equitable remedies 'traditionally accorded by courts of equity' at our country's inception." That, in turn, rests on whether similar or analogous relief was available in the High Court of Chancery in England "'at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary Act.'"
As the Court put it: "The answer is no…." Universal injunctions, the Court noted, appear to have been used by federal courts only since 1963. Because "[n]othing like a universal injunction was available at the founding, or for that matter, for more than a century thereafter," the Court held that federal courts lack authority under the Judiciary Act to issue them.
The Court also refused to view universal injunctions through the prism of a "bill of peace," which "was a form of group litigation permitted in English courts." Specifically, a "bill of peace" permitted the Chancellor to "consolidate multiple suits that involved a 'common claim the plaintiff could have against multiple defendants' or 'some kind of common claim that multiple plaintiffs could have against a single defendant.'" The Court found that universal injunctions were not analogous, and that a better analogy instead is class actions brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. There also remain questions about the extent to which States themselves can seek relief on behalf of their citizens – a open question Justice Alito identified in his concurring opinion.
Analysis
CASA did not decide that the EO was constitutional. The Court instead issued a very limited – but broad-reaching – procedural decision: federal courts do not have the power under the Judiciary Act to issue universal injunctions. As the Court noted, "federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them."
The Court's decision will impact litigants no matter which party occupies the White House, and injunctions going forward will be available only to the litigants who bring suits in federal courts. If those litigants wish for injunctions to apply to others, they will have to bring their claims as class actions under Rule 23.
As it turns out, that is exactly what happened in response to CASA. The same day the Court issued its decision, three individuals filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire seeking an injunction preventing the EO's enforcement – and other relief – on behalf of:
All current and future persons born on or after February 20, 2025, where (1) that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States Citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth as well as the parents (including expectant parents) of those persons.
See Barbara v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-00244-JL-AJ (emphasis added). By Order dated 10 July, the court in Barbara certified the proposed class without the emphasized text.
We doubt CASA or the district court's Order in Barbara is the last we will hear about this issue.
