The Latest on the Controversial Universal-Injunction Ruling

“The best that can be said for Trump v. CASA is that it could have been far worse.”

That was the opening sentence in a scathing “post-mortem” of the U.S. Supreme Court’s now-infamous June 27th “birthright citizenship” decision. See Trump v. CASA and the future of the universal injunction (July 2, 2025) Professor Mila Sohoni, scotusblog. “Its methodology and conclusions are myopic and wrong, and it is especially unwelcome during a period in which each passing day seems to bring new incursions by the executive branch upon individual rights, the separation of powers, federalism, and the rule of law.”

Mila Sohoni is no random commentator plucked out of the blogosphere. She is a Professor of Law and the John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School, where she teaches Federal Courts and Civil Procedure. She – quite literally – “wrote the book” on national injunctions. See list of scholarly works.

Professor Sohini’s amica curiae brief in this case is comprehensive and definitive: “…[T]he lower courts’ injunctions were proper. The universal injunction is rooted firmly in the traditions of equity, and Article III standing doctrine poses no obstacle to the universal injunction. The Government’s policy concerns about universal injunctions are both legally irrelevant and overstated.”

How could the Trump v. Casa ruling have been “…far worse? The Supreme Court 6-3 majority could have thrown out – entirely – the remedy of a universal or national injunction, leaving no alternatives at all. They did not. There are two separate lifelines – the second of which includes new developments as of late this afternoon.

Alternative “Complete” Relief

The lower courts in these three consolidated cases were handed a lifeline, albeit a short one – just 30 days long – to fashion new relief that isn’t called a universal injunction but might provide roughly equivalent (“complete”) relief. The catch, of course, is this off-ramp would apply only to the 22 or so jurisdictions that joined in the three consolidated cases in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits. And it would all have to happen over the course of a mere four weeks or so. Almost miraculously, the district and appellate courts made the finish line. See, for instance:  State of Washington, et al. v. Trump, et al. (July 28, 2025, midnight PDT) Updated Opinion [Document #165 at www.courtlistener.com] Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Docket Number: 25-807.

But in the 28 or so jurisdictions that declined to seek the requested relief – and, indeed, actively opposed it, much to the detriment of certain of its soon-to-be-born and already alive residents – the default consequences have begun. The Administration just issued its first batch of official policies implementing the outrageous and blatantly unconstitutional Executive Order No. 14160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. In Trump Just Released His Plan to Revoke Birthright Citizenship. It’s Worse Than Imagined. (July 30, 2025  4:07 pm EDT) Mark Joseph Stern of Slate.com explains: [“…[A]n immigration agency released the first stage of its “implementation plan” last Friday. It shocks the conscience….”]

Mr. Stern continues: “In dry bureaucratic language, the memo outlines a plan to revoke citizenship from the children of both immigrants who lack permanent legal status and many lawful residents, including visa holders, Dreamers, and asylum-seekers. It envisions intrusive federal review of parents’ papers—quite possibly in the hospital, before or shortly after birth—to gauge the newborn’s legal status. And it paves the way for people who spend their entire lives in the United States to be deported to countries in which they’ve never stepped foot, or to be condemned to the limbo of statelessness….”

Class Action Relief

A second lifeline is the continued availability of class-action relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. See Class Action Lawsuits: An Introduction (September 13, 2024) Bryan L. Adkins, Congressional Research Service. Ordinarily, the class-action route is slow and complex, but in the case of Executive Order No. 14160, there have been some developments already.

First, there is an order already entered in federal district court in New Hampshire in Barbara et al v. Trump, Docket No. 1:25-cv-00244, District Court, D. New Hampshire, Case Filed June 27, 2025, see Document #64, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (July 10, 2025). This case was filed as a class-action lawsuit in which Barbara et al are suing for themselves and others similarly situation.

Second, there is a development just reported late this afternoon in Casa Inc. v Trump, Docket No. 8:25-cv-00201, District Court, D. Maryland – which is one of the three original “national injunction” lawsuits consolidated for Supreme Court hearing and decision on the procedural issue. (There were individual plaintiffs in that case along with organizational plaintiffs.) See new Documents 128-132, inclusive, filed on August 7, 2025. Document 129, particularly, is an Order granting 97 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification; [designations of class representatives]; and Document 131 is an Order granting in part and denying as moot in part 98 Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Classwide Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, etc.

Overnight, we can all take a look at these new documents in detail and sort them out. [A particular benefit of the courtlistener.com (free) service is their continual monitoring of court actions and real-time alerts.]

Conclusion

In the next few posts, we’ll back up and put these latest developments in context and in language nearer to “normal-people-speak.”

First, take a peek back to our earlier posts on the CASA v. Trump consolidated-cases injunctions:

• More Thoughts on NCN Litigation and Nationwide Injunctions (May 5, 2025)
• Preview of Upcoming Nationwide-Injunction Oral Argument (May 9, 2025)

Next, set aside some time to read Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s flawless and brilliant  dissenting opinion in Trump v. CASA, 606 U.S. ___ (2025). The home page includes the full listing in this case, with majority and dissenting opinions separated out. See Sotomayor Dissent.

Justice Sotomayor’s submission is everything the majority opinion should have been – but was not.  She explains – in plain English and in logical order – the law of (a) birthright citizenship and (b) nationwide injunctive relief. The plaintiffs should have prevailed on both points. She also points out the sloppy and entirely unsupported analyses and conclusions of the Barrett majority opinion and the three dissenting opinions (Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh) on these issues.

In any event, had the majority followed the established rules of court for evaluating a request for a stay of preliminary injunctive relief, the procedural matter would not have been reached at all. That happens only if the defendant can first establish a likelihood of success on the merits of the case. Here, the constitutional protection of birthright citizenship has long been clear, unambiguous, and settled.

Justice Barrett never discussed the birthright-citizenship topic at all! The executive branch should not have been permitted to make an end-run with the purpose and effect of eliminating nationwide injunctive relief.

– Linda J. Rosenthal, J.D., FPLG Information & Research Director