Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
Trump v. CASA, Inc.
 | |
| Trump v. CASA, Inc. | |
| Term: 2024 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: May 15, 2025 Decided: June 27, 2025 | |
| Outcome | |
| Partial stay | |
| Vote | |
| 6-3 | |
| Majority | |
| Amy Coney Barrett • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh | |
| Concurring | |
| Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch • Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh | |
| Dissenting | |
| Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Ketanji Brown Jackson | |
Trump v. CASA, Inc. is a case that centers on the constitutionality of Executive Order 14160, which directed federal agencies to deny birthright citizenship to certain children of non-citizen parents. It raises federalism questions about the scope of federal executive power and the role of states in recognizing and protecting individual rights. By challenging the federal government’s authority to redefine citizenship standards, the case highlights a direct conflict between federal immigration policy and state responsibilities related to vital records, public services, and legal recognition of residents.
The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 27, 2025.[1] The case was argued on May 15, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. It was consolidated with Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey.
In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court partially stayed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Court held that the lower courts likely exceeded their equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 by issuing universal injunctions—blocking enforcement of the Executive Order nationwide, not just for the plaintiffs. Because such sweeping relief wasn’t available in traditional equity, the Court limited the injunctions to the named plaintiffs only. The ruling narrows the use of nationwide injunctions and reaffirms that federal courts must tailor relief to the parties before them. The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Executive Order or the question of birthright citizenship. [1]
The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.
Why it matters: This landmark decision reinforces structural limits on judicial power when reviewing federal executive actions, thereby preserving the separation of powers between the branches of the federal government and restraining federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions that affect all states. By holding that district courts likely exceeded their equitable authority in blocking enforcement of Executive Order 14160 beyond the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court curtailed the ability of individual federal judges to impose uniform national policies. This ruling narrows a key legal tool that states and advocacy groups have used to resist presidential actions with nationwide effect, and reasserts that courts may only grant remedies to the actual parties before them, unless Congress has clearly authorized broader relief. For states, the decision shifts the legal terrain in intergovernmental disputes: it limits their ability to secure nationwide policy freezes through litigation, requiring instead more localized or plaintiff-specific challenges—even when state interests are broadly implicated.
Background
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
Case summary
The following are the parties to this case:[3]
- Petitioner: Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al.
- Legal counsel: D. John Sauer (United States Solicitor General)
- Respondent: CASA, Inc., et al.
- Legal counsel: Kelsi Brown Corkran (Institute for Constitutional Advocacy & Protection), William Harold Powell (Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection)
The following summary of the case was published by Oyez
| “ | Shortly after taking office on January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Order titled 'Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.' This Order declared that certain individuals born in the United States would not be granted U.S. citizenship at birth if their mothers were either in the country illegally or temporarily and if their fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Specifically, the Order directed federal agencies not to issue or recognize documents affirming U.S. citizenship for individuals born under these circumstances after February 19, 2025. The Order further mandated that agencies revise their policies and issue guidance to implement these new rules. The interpretation marked a dramatic shift from long-standing constitutional and statutory understandings of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has historically been viewed as providing birthright citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status. In response to the Executive Order, lawsuits were quickly filed in multiple federal district courts—specifically in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington—by states, organizations, and individuals who would be affected. These plaintiffs argued that the Order violated the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act. All three district courts issued preliminary injunctions blocking the enforcement and implementation of the Executive Order nationwide. The federal government appealed the injunctions, arguing that the lawsuits should only apply to the specific plaintiffs and not the entire country, and also requested permission for government agencies to continue internal planning for implementation. Appeals courts declined to limit the injunctions, prompting the federal government to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to partially stay the orders—specifically to allow agency planning and to restrict injunctive relief to the named plaintiffs only.[4] |
” |
To learn more about this case, see the following:
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in this case:
- June 27, 2025: In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court partially stayed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.[1]
- May 15, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- April 17, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- March 13, 2025: Donald J. Trump appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- February 6, 2025: The United States District Court for the District of Maryland issued an injunction to block the Trump Administration’s executive order which limits birthright citizenship to children who have at least one U.S. citizen parent or a parent is a lawful permanent resident.
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]
Questions presented:
|
Oral argument
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[5]
Transcript
Transcript of oral argument:[6]
Outcome
In a 6‑3 decision, the United States Supreme Court partially stayed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, holding that federal district courts likely exceeded their equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 by issuing universal injunctions that go beyond providing relief to the named plaintiffs. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court.[1]
According to SCOTUSblog:[7]
| “ |
By a vote of 6-3, the justices repudiated the concept of universal or nationwide injunctions, which prohibit the government from enforcing a law or policy anywhere in the country. The justices did not, however, weigh in on the question at the center of the three lawsuits before the court: whether the birthright citizenship order itself is constitutional.[4] |
” |
Opinion
In the court's majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote:[1]
| “ |
Some say that the universal injunction 'give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.' Trump, 585 U. S., at 720 (THOMAS, J., concurring). But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too. [4] |
” |
| —Justice Amy Coney Barrett | ||
This ruling restricted federal district courts from issuing universal injunctions that block federal policies nationwide, holding that relief must generally be limited to the plaintiffs in the case. However, the Court did not foreclose other legal mechanisms that may still allow for broader relief. Justice Barrett’s opinion left intact the possibility of systemic remedies through class-action lawsuits, state-led lawsuits where states allege distinct harms and meet standing requirements, and challenges brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which authorizes courts to set aside unlawful agency actions. These tools remain available even as the Court narrowed the availability of sweeping injunctions in individual cases.[8]
Concurring opinions
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Samuel Alito also filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote another concurring opinion.
| “ |
The Court today holds that federal courts may not issue so-called universal injunctions. I agree and join in full. As the Court explains, the Judiciary Act of 1789—the statute that 'authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies'—does not permit universal injunctions. Ante, at 5. It authorizes only those remedies traditionally available in inequity, and there is no historical tradition allowing courts to provide 'relief that extend[s] beyond the parties.' Ante, at 5–11. That conclusion is dispositive: As I have previously explained, '[i]f district courts have any authority to issue universal injunctions,' it must come from some specific statutory or constitutional grant. Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 713–714 (2018) (concurring opinion). But, the Judiciary Act is the only real possibility, and serious constitutional questions would arise even if Congress purported to one day allow universal injunctions. [4] |
” |
| —Justice Clarence Thomas | ||
In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[1]
| “ |
Putting the kibosh on universal injunctions does nothing to disrupt Rule 23’s requirements. Of course, Rule 23 may permit the certification of nationwide classes in some discrete scenarios. But district courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23. Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of 'nationwide class relief,' and today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest. [4] |
” |
| —Justice Samuel Alito | ||
In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[1]
| “ |
But importantly, today’s decision will require district courts to follow proper legal procedures when awarding such relief. Most significantly, district courts can no longer award preliminary nationwide or classwide relief except when such relief is legally authorized. And that salutary development will help bring substantially more order and discipline to the ubiquitous preliminary litigation over new federal statutes and executive actions. [4] |
” |
| —Justice Brett Kavanaugh | ||
Dissenting opinions
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion.
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]
| “ |
No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent. [4] |
” |
| —Justice Sonia Sotomayor | ||
In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote:[1]
| “ |
I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point: The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law. It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called 'universal injunctions' is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior. When the Government says 'do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,' what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution— please allow this. That is some solicitation. With its ruling today, the majority largely grants the Government’s wish.But, in my view, if this country is going to persist as a Nation of laws and not men, the Judiciary has no choice but to deny it. [4] |
” |
| —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson | ||
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
October term 2024-2025
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Trump v. CASA, Inc. (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Trump v. CASA, Inc.
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Supreme Court of the United States, "Trump v. CASA, Inc.", June 20, 2025
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Application for a partial stay of the injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington", April 17, 2025
- ↑ , "No. 24A884," accessed April 29, 2025
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued May 15, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued May 15, 2025
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship case", June 20, 2025
- ↑ Politico, "Trump adversaries see silver linings in his ‘monumental’ Supreme Court win", June 27, 2025
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
