On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Donald J. Trump v. CASA de Maryland, Inc., No. 24-1022, a consolidated appeal that could fundamentally limit the power of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions. At issue is whether a single trial judge may block enforcement of a presidential executive order thereby adjudicating issues that affect persons who are not parties to the litigation. The issue arises from three separate challenges to President Trump’s 2024 Executive Order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants.
President Trump’s effort to redefine birthright citizenship has set the stage for a pivotal Supreme Court showdown over the limits of judicial power. On his second inauguration day, January 20, 2025, the President issued an executive order declaring that children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants are not entitled to automatic citizenship unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order challenges widely held views about birthright citizenship, which many had considered a settled matter, based on the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649.
The Executive Order Sparks a Legal Firestorm
Federal district courts across the country reacted swiftly. In Seattle, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour ruled that birthright citizenship is a fundamental constitutional right. He deemed the executive order “blatantly unconstitutional” and issued a preliminary injunction barring nationwide enforcement of the President’s policy. In Greenbelt, Maryland, the immigrants’ rights group CASA de Maryland, joined by the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and several individual plaintiffs, obtained a similar injunction from Judge Deborah Boardman. The following day in Boston, Judge Leo Sorokin issued a third nationwide injunction in a suit brought by eighteen states and several advocacy organizations, likewise holding that the executive order violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
These three lawsuits proceeded independently, but their outcomes quickly converged. The Department of Justice appealed the decisions and faced resistance in the appellate courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, overseeing the Maryland case, declined to stay Judge Boardman’s injunction pending appeal, albeit with a dissent from Judge Niemeyer, who questioned the breadth of the remedy. The Ninth and First Circuits likewise rejected the administration’s attempts to limit the jurisdictional reach of the injunctions.
In response, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of granting review solely on the legality of nationwide injunctions. On March 13, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris petitioned for emergency relief, not to uphold the executive order, but to scale back the injunctions so that they applied only to the actual plaintiffs. The Court consolidated the three cases – Trump v. CASA de Maryland, Trump v. State of Washington, and Trump v. State of New Jersey – and scheduled oral argument for next week. Importantly, the justices did not agree to review the district courts’ decisions regarding the unconstitutionality of the executive order itself. Instead, the Court will consider whether district courts overstepped their authority by issuing injunctions that affect individuals who are not parties to the litigation.
The CASA de Maryland case is the Court’s clearest opportunity yet to decide whether nationwide injunctions are constitutionally permissible. While the issue has percolated in the lower courts and been debated by academics, the Supreme Court has not previously issued a definitive ruling. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have been outspoken critics of the practice. Justice Thomas, in particular, has called nationwide injunctions “legally and historically dubious,” arguing they exceed the Article III requirement that courts resolve only actual “cases” and “controversies.” Chief Justice John Roberts has expressed concerns about forum shopping and endorsed the random assignment of judges for certain cases to uphold the judicial system’s obligation to decide disputes untainted by the perception of partisan politics.
Ending Unwarranted Judicial Interference or Protecting Rights Nationwide?
The Trump administration’s position is that injunctions distort the role of the judiciary by improperly interfering with executive branch policies. By granting relief beyond the plaintiffs in any given case, courts disrupt the constitutional balance of power by allowing a single district judge to override executive action for the entire country. This undermines the executive branch’s ability to implement laws and policies entrusted to it by Congress, often before the merits of a case have been fully adjudicated. Injunctions also short-circuit the development of legal precedent and deprive other courts of the opportunity to rule, thereby effectively centralizing national policymaking in the hands of individual judges. The practice fosters forum shopping, as litigants strategically file in favorable jurisdictions to secure broad relief, further politicizing the judiciary and eroding public confidence in its impartiality. Ultimately, nationwide injunctions stretch Article III’s “case or controversy” requirement beyond its constitutional bounds, allowing the judiciary to act as a substitute legislature and executive in violation of the separation of powers.
Proponents of injunctions counter that nationwide enforcement of judicial decisions is sometimes necessary to prevent widespread harm, ensure uniform protection of constitutional rights, and maintain clarity in national policies. In cases where a federal policy affects people across the country, limiting relief to individual plaintiffs may leave others vulnerable to the same unlawful conduct. Nationwide relief also avoids inconsistent rulings across jurisdictions, reduces duplicative litigation, and ensures that similarly situated individuals are treated equally under the law—especially in areas like immigration, healthcare, or voting rights. In the birthright citizenship litigation, limiting relief to the district in which the dispute is litigated would cause legal chaos—children could be citizens in one state and non-citizens in another. If the injunctions only apply to the named plaintiffs, identical children born elsewhere under similar circumstances might be denied citizenship until new suits are filed. Organizations like CASA and ASAP, with hundreds of thousands of members nationwide, argue that only a universal injunction can adequately safeguard their members’ rights.
Congress Weighs In: Senator Grassley’s Reform Bill
The significance of the issue has not escaped Congress. On March 31, 2025, Senator Chuck Grassley introduced S.1206, the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025 which, if enacted, would bar federal courts from issuing non-party injunctive relief unless authorized by statute or pursuant to Rule 23 in certified class actions. The bill provides that courts must be confined to deciding cases between actual litigants and that nationwide injunctions represent a judicial overreach that undermines the political branches. It also would streamline appellate review of temporary injunctions to facilitate quicker resolution of high-impact policy disputes.
Another Broad Injunction Blocks a Trump Policy
Recent developments underscore why the Supreme Court must urgently resolve the issue. On April 24, 2025, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction blocking key provisions of another Trump executive order that requires documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration in federal elections. The district judge ruled that election regulation is the domain of Congress and the states, not the President, and issued a nationwide injunction. The decision froze the policy before implementation, raising familiar concerns about judicial vetoes of executive action and again spotlighting the disruptive potential of universal injunctions.
All Eyes Are on The Court
Whatever its decision, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA de Maryland will be consequential. If the Court limits or prohibits nationwide injunctions, plaintiffs will be required to pursue narrower forms of relief or meet the requirements for class certification. This would recalibrate how public policy is challenged and adjudicated. It also would restore more traditional boundaries between trial courts and the federal government, reducing the risk of judicial decisions overriding national policies.
It is possible the Court will opt for a middle-ground approach, preserving the possibility of broad relief in exceptional cases while requiring stricter standards and justification. Regardless of outcome, the decision will have significant implications for constitutional litigation, agency rulemaking, and the power dynamics among the branches of government. Legal professionals and other people across the country are watching closely as the Court considers the constitutional issues presented and prepares to clarify this critical area of judicial authority.
Authored by John Rowley, Founding Partner at SECIL Law PLLC. John can be reached at jrowley@secillaw.com.
