The Nationwide-Injunctions Ban: Is Clarity Possible?

The gauntlet was thrown down on Inauguration Day with a slew of intentionally provocative executive orders.

This first batch from the Oval Office early that afternoon included a presidential directive so breathtakingly objectionable – unconstitutional on its face – that it stood out as a keystone of the “Shock-and-Awe 2.0” game plan for the First One Hundred Days. The 2024 Trump campaign had featured it prominently last year within the 900+ pages of Project 2025.

By the very next day, there were three legal challenges to Executive Order No. 14160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (January 20, 2025). Alert opponents knew what was coming and were determined to meet it head on. The true purpose and intended effect of EO No. 14160 with its classically “double-speak” title is to blast a huge hole into the time-tested and constitutionally enshrined doctrine of “birthright citizenship.”

Strong anti-immigrant sentiment runs through the Project 2025 manifesto. It’s red meat to the base. And it’s exactly the type of in-your-face issue to test out exactly how far the Trump 2.0 administration will be permitted to stretch the outer edges of executive-branch power. Or it may tell us precisely how woefully few checks and balances remain in place after only six months.

The day of reckoning came on June 27, 2025, when a 6-3 majority in Trump v. CASA, Inc. – a truly execrable Supreme Court ruling  – was announced on the final day of the October 2024 Term.  “The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it,“ declared Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the brutal dissent she read aloud in open court: “The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will only endure if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival.”

She concluded: “Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution …. Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.”

The Aftermath

A few days later, Professor Mila Sohoni, a key amica curiae in this case, summed up widespread sentiment as the high court justices flew off to their summer-vacation destinations. “The best that can be said for Trump v. CASA is that it could have been far worse.” See Trump v. CASA and the future of the universal injunction (July 2, 2025).

In The Latest on the Controversial Universal-Injunction Ruling (August 7, 2025) FPLG Blog, we began to explain how opponents of EO No. 14160 are fighting back within the limited wiggle room that the 6-3 Trump v. CASA majority has allowed. It’s a developing story but more progress has been made in the ten days since that post.

There is now more than one (renewed) preliminary injunction in place (approved by both a district court and an appellate panel) that is a “nationwide injunction” in all but name.

And there is now more than one provisionally certified class-action lawsuit including (preliminary) injunctive relief. This path is also a sanctioned alternative by the Trump v Casa majority.

But much more work must be done. And there are significant dangers ahead.

Issues of Deep Concern 

First: In their concurring opinions, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, caution that the Supreme Court jurists-turned-policy-gurus could poke back in and disrupt the summertime post-Trump v. Casa deliberations and results in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits.

Second: The president announced – almost as soon as the Supreme Court had published its decision on June 27th – that he plans to revisit the dozens and dozens of other preliminary “nationwide” injunctions granted around the U.S. in connection with others of his executive orders and policy moves. Trump says he will move aggressively to undo nationwide blocks on his agenda (June 28, 2025) Justin Jouvenal, The Washington Post.

Third: A particularly worrisome aspect of this saga – and, indeed, the entire Trump 2.0 administration’s plans and tactics – is the troubling fact that the consolidated trio of cases challenging EO No. 14160 under the joint caption of “CASA, Inc. v. Trump” was hijacked in early March out of the normal federal litigation pipeline and into the Supreme Court’s infamous “Shadow Docket.” In Why the shadow docket should concern us all (August 4, 2025 9:53 AM), scotusblog.com, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky voiced broadly held concerns in the legal community. “The Supreme Court’s emergency docket,” the distinguished scholar explained, “has taken on great significance in recent weeks as the justices have upheld a number of Trump administration policies, often with no explanation and sometimes implicitly overruling long-standing precedents….”

Conclusion

We’re going to take a look at these matters in some detail in the next few posts. The Trump 2.0 administration’s almost-daily moves to uproot the rule of law and create chaos present an ongoing existential crisis to all Americans.

In particular, though, the charitable nonprofit sector is directly affected – and targeted! – in an unprecedented manner. So we cannot – and should not – turn away.

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