On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., marking a major shift in how federal courts may respond to challenges against nationwide policies—especially in immigration law. The case challenged Executive Order 14160, which sought to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents and parents of temporary visitors, students, and workers. The Court did not address the constitutionality of the executive order ending birthright citizenship itself. Instead, it focused on the scope of judicial relief. The Court ruled that federal district courts may no longer issue “universal injunctions” that block federal policies for all individuals, not just the plaintiffs before the Court.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling:
- Universal injunctions are disfavored: The Court held that district courts generally lack the authority to issue injunctions that extend beyond the parties in the case.
- Relief must be tailored to the Plaintiffs in the litigation: Injunctions must be limited to providing complete relief only to the plaintiffs with standing.
- No ruling on merits of Birthright Citizenship: The Court did not decide whether President Trump’s Executive Order on birthright citizenship violated the Constitution or federal law; it focused solely on the scope of judicial relief.
The ruling delays the implementation of the Birthright Citizenship Order for 30 days, giving affected parties time to seek other remedies in court, including class certification.
What Does the Supreme Court’s Ruling Mean for Individuals and Employers?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued in a sharply worded dissenting opinion that by allowing the Birthright Citizenship Order to be enforced in some jurisdictions but not others, the Supreme Court was effectively undermining the uniformity of citizenship law, which is foundational to national identity and equal protection. Justice Sotomayor wrote that such a fractured approach could result in “children born on the same day in different states having different citizenship statuses”—a scenario she described as “legally incoherent and morally untenable.”
For Individuals:
- No automatic nationwide protection: Relief from unlawful immigration (and other) policies now applies only to the named plaintiffs in a lawsuit, e.g., the people who actually sue for relief.
- Need for proactive legal action: Individuals must file or join lawsuits that challenge unlawful policies to benefit from court rulings.
- Legal uncertainty: Immigration Executive Orders, such as the Order ending Birthright Citizenship, may be blocked in some jurisdictions but enforced in others. As Justice Sotomayor warned, the decision could result in “children born on the same day in different states having different citizenship statuses.”
For Employers:
- Strategic litigation planning: Universities, nonprofits, and private employers must consider class actions or coordinated litigation to protect broad constituencies.
- Compliance complexity: Organizations operating nationally may face inconsistent legal obligations depending on regional court decisions.
- Increased litigation: More lawsuits may be necessary to achieve the same level of protection previously afforded by a single nationwide injunction.
What Comes Next:
This decision represents a fundamental shift in federal litigation strategy. As noted, the ruling may lead to a fragmented legal landscape where constitutional rights are unevenly protected across jurisdictions.
Our firm is closely monitoring developments, including potential class action filings and further district court rulings.
