How the Supreme Court Just Weakened Legal Protections for All Americans
The Court’s decision to restrict universal injunctions empowers the executive branch and paves the way for an imperial presidency.
The Supreme Court just handed the Trump administration an extraordinary amount of power with little to check it. In a case that will surely set a dangerous precedent not only for this administration, which continues to act aggressively but also for all administrations going forward, the Court ruled that lower courts cannot grant universal injunctions against the President's power under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Such a decision is not only dangerous but also allows the President to act with a broad interpretation of power, leaving narrow methods to challenge it.
The Case
The case in question, Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025), involved three suits against the Trump administration regarding Executive Order No. 14160. The order, which was issued by President Trump earlier this year, doesn't recognize birthright citizenship as the law of the land, in direct violation of the 14th Amendment. The order asserts, among other things, that:
"...the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
This statement is blatantly incorrect. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, the child of two Chinese residents at the time of his birth, was a lawful citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment. The Court held that because his parents were not part of a foreign tribe, serving as diplomats for the Chinese government, or were part of a hostile military force, Wong Kim Ark was a lawful citizen.
The order attempts to circumvent this fundamental reality by asserting its own interpretation of when individuals born in the United States are not "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the United States under the 14th Amendment. Among these extra-judicial terms are:
When that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States, and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or
When that person's mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.
These conditions and the order that encompasses them are at odds with the fundamental established law regarding naturalization and citizenship, and the lawsuits against these restrictions were rightfully meant to challenge this unconstitutional act.
Indeed, one judge argued that President Trump's order was "blatantly unconstitutional" and that attempting to implement it "boggles the mind." Indeed, the courts have repeatedly emphasized that birthright citizenship is established and settled law.
Despite this, the Court ruled that a universal injunction, meaning nationwide blocks on illegal orders by the administration, is not within the jurisdiction of the lower courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Asserting that "universal injunctions were conspicuously nonexistent for most of the nation’s history. Their absence from 18th and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority," the Court argues that the legal basis for such injunctions does not exist (pg. 2). In other words, the Court found no evidence this approach is grounded in history, and therefore, it must not be legal.
However, the Court also acknowledges the States' argument that so-called patchwork injunctions would be impossible and burdensome but refuses to address the question in its ruling (pg. 5). Instead, it argues that narrowly focused injunctions are sufficient, as they will protect the rights of the individuals being harmed by the order. In other words, the people bringing the lawsuits have nothing to worry about because the courts can still issue injunctions on their behalf, just not for the whole country. This is an error.
The Danger
The failure of the Court to address the concern of inconsistent application of the law is not only a moral one but a practical and legal one. While the issue at hand only pertains to the authority of the judiciary, the result is a patchwork of legality surrounding the application of this illegal order.
Such an approach is not only ridiculous and time-consuming, but it also contradicts the intent of the founders who created the institutions that the Trump administration attempts to undermine. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton explains that the judiciary must "...declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing." Hamilton further warns that:
"Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
If President Trump's executive order is unconstitutional, then it must necessarily be unenforceable. It can't simultaneously be illegal to deny citizenship for one person but allow it for another simply because one of the people in question has sued the government. As Justice Jackson rightfully notes in her dissent:
"Thus, the function of the courts—both in theory and in practice—necessarily includes announcing what the law requires in such suits for the benefit of all who are protected by the Constitution, not merely doling out relief to injured private parties" (pg. 10).
The law must be upheld for all, or it can't be upheld at all. While the courts will now have to readdress the concerns of already established plaintiffs, millions of people are now at risk of having their rights violated because the Court decided that illegal orders can stand based on a technicality.
At a time when the Trump administration has demonstrated complete and total contempt for the judiciary and the rule of law, and some of his officials have reportedly urged staff to reject lawful court orders, this ruling sets a dangerous precedent that will only lead to an increasingly powerful presidency. If courts cannot check unlawful executive overreach for all Americans, the Constitution loses its strength, and Americans will suffer as a result.
Bibliography
Barrett, Devlin. “At Justice Dept., Bove Suggested Violating Court Orders, Whistle-Blower Says - The New York Times.” The New York Times, June 24, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/us/politics/justice-department-emil-bove-trump-deportations-reuveni.html.
Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Contributor: A Stunning and Tragic Supreme Court Decision.” Los Angeles Times, June 27, 2025, sec. Opinion Voices. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-06-27/nationwide-injunction-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship.
Chidi, George. “Liberal Supreme Court Justices’ Dissents Reveal Concerns That the US Faces a Crisis.” The Guardian, June 27, 2025, sec. US news. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/27/us-supreme-court-dissents.
Gerstein, Josh. “Judge Blocks Trump Order on Birthright Citizenship - POLITICO.” Politico, January 23, 2025. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/23/judge-blocks-trump-order-on-birthright-citizenship-00200267.
Hamilton, Alexander.“The Avalon Project : Federalist No. 78.” In The Federalist Papers. New Haven, CT.: Avalon Project, Lillian Goldman Law Library, 1788. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp.
Kovensky, Josh. “6-3 SCOTUS Curtails Courts’ Power to Check Illegal White House Actions.” News article. TPM – Talking Points Memo, June 27, 2025. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/6-3-scotus-curtails-courts-power-to-check-illegal-white-house-actions.
Malley, Blaise. “‘No Right Is Safe’: Supreme Court Dissenters Sound Alarm on Birthright Citizenship Case.” Salon.Com, June 27, 2025. https://www.salon.com/2025/06/27/no-right-is-safe-liberal-justices-issue-dire-warnings-after-birthright-citizenship-ruling/?utm_source=website&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ogshare&utm_content=og.
Oyez. “United States v. Wong Kim Ark.” Legal Blog, 1898. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649.
Palma, Stefania. “Trump Claims Victory as Supreme Court Curbs Nationwide Injunctions.” Financial Times, June 27, 2025, sec. US politics & policy. https://www.ft.com/content/d678fbfb-2243-470c-ac7c-2c79ddc8506d.
Pavlich, Katie. “BREAKING: SCOTUS Rules on Rogue Judges, Impacting Birthright Citizenship.” Blog. TownHall, June 27, 2025. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2025/06/27/breaking-scotus-rules-on-birthright-citizenship-n2659527.
Trump v. CASA, Inc. No. 24A884 (U.S. June 27, 2025). Slip opinion. Supreme Court of the United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf.