On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in a contentious case regarding “Birthright Citizenship,” stating that lower courts do not have the authority to issue national injunctions as it would constitute an abuse of their jurisdiction.
The decision in Trump vs. Casa did not delve into the core substantive issues of the case but centered around whether Article 14 of the Constitution provides for citizenship at birth. Conservative viewpoints suggest that “birthright citizenship” is misused by illegal immigrants, enabling them to confer citizenship upon their children. They argue that many countries lack such practices and believe the 14th Amendment was not intended to establish birthright citizenship.
In light of several lower court rulings that imposed national injunctions against President Trump’s policy, the DOJ focused on the narrower issue of national injunctions. Over the years, both Democrats, and to a lesser degree Republicans, have turned to favorable jurisdictions to halt administrative policies lacking legislative support.
In her original opinion, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, representing the court’s conservative majority, noted that “a universal injunction is likely to exceed the valid powers Congress has granted federal courts.”
Barrett explained:
The Judiciary Act of 1789 conferred jurisdiction over “all cases” to federal courts, and while the law still “allows federal courts to issue fair remedies,” this authority isn’t unrestricted. We determined that statutory grants only encompass equitable relief types traditionally recognized by early courts. Therefore, we must consider if the universal injunction is sufficiently “similar” to remedies known at the time of the Constitution’s adoption.
The response is no. Neither universal injunctions nor comparable remedies were available in the early British High Court. Equity created mechanisms for the Crown to ensure justice not accessible through standard legal processes.
In conclusion, universal injunctions were not a common feature in much of our nation’s history. Their absence from typical practices of the 18th and 19th centuries addresses judicial authority issues.
Several opinions in agreement were expressed, including three liberal justices who voiced concerns about the court’s direction.
Jackson remarked that the ruling enabling enforcement to contravene the Constitution against those who haven’t filed litigation poses a significant threat to the rule of law, likening the court’s comparison at its formation to an “inappropriate comparison with a powerless British court.”
Barrett firmly dismissed Jackson’s concerns, arguing that the Constitution itself comes into conflict with long-standing precedents. She pointed out that while Judge Jackson might favor an imperial judiciary, it diminishes the number of imperial leaders.
Moving forward, district courts may apply this judgment broadly only if a plaintiff can present a class-action complaint and prove a general injury.
A group seeking to exploit “forum shopping” to find lenient judges to block national policies faces significant setbacks with this ruling.
The case is Trump vs. Casa, US Supreme Court, 8:25-CV-00201.
update: Carrie Severino from the Conservative Judicial Crisis Network commented:
This ruling curtails the misuse of universal injunctions. Today’s decision marks a win for the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Judge Alito’s agreement signals that litigants have been warned about the potential abuse of class actions and standing processes, and that the courts are alert to this issue and ready to curb judicial activism. It seems there’s been a lot of unnecessary alarm surrounding Judge Barrett.
