​​​

The case of Trump v. CASA, Inc., et al. is currently being debated in the Supreme Court surrounding the

judicial right to the injunction as a means to delay or shut down specific policies. The injunction in question was pushed by judges from Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, which delayed President Trump’s executive order to alter the right to birthright citizenship. Trump brought this case forward to fight against the right to injunction. This article will explain what an injunction means to the nation, outline the basic arguments surrounding both the case and the injunction itself, and consider the implications of the case swinging in either direction.

 

Introduction

The term “Nationwide injunction” refers to a judicial order against the government, which prevents the

implementation of a challenged law, regulation, or other policy [1]. The most important and contested distinction of this judicial order is that the ruling not only applies to the direct parties involved, or to a specific geographic scope. Additionally, the parties representing don’t require an obvious close tie to the case brought. It has been debated, especially in recent years as their frequency has increased, whether it is constitutional to allow courts below the Supreme Court to make decisions with such wide repercussions, with procedural rules being so discretionarily based.

​

[1] Joanna R. Lampe, Nationwide Injunctions: Law, History, and Proposals for Reform, Congress.Gov, September 8, 2021.

​

Background 

The case of Trump v. CASA, Inc., et al., is currently being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. It revolves around

several injunctions filed against one of President Trump’s first executive orders back in office, which was intended to begin applying on February 19th [2].  The order dictates the right of birthright citizenship to be heavily altered, taking this right away from people who were born in the United States, specifically to undocumented immigrant parents or parents on short-term visas. Trump’s legal team filed this case to challenge the right of courts to use injunctions to stop or delay his executive orders. This is the major order in question, but if this case is decided in Trump’s favor, the courts will lose their ability to challenge policies unless they are the Supreme Court, with very specific cases brought before them.

​

[2] Andrew Chung & John Kruzel, Trump Asks US Supreme Court to Intervene in his Bid to Curb Birthright Citizenship, Reuters, March 13, 2025.

​

Major Arguments 

 

Constitutional Legitimacy of the Executive Order 

The main reason the judges from Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington filed their injunction was in contest

to the clear violation of the 14th Amendment’s assertation of citizenship given to all who were born in the United States and the Supreme Court’s historical affirmation of this right through the 1898 decision of Wong Kim Ark. Ark was stopped at the border coming back into the United States following a visit to his family in China and his citizenship was put into question. However, this was supported by the Court, which decided that no matter the parents’ citizenship statuses, if a person was born in the United States, they are automatically a citizen.

These three judges pointed out several issues in their injunction: Judge John Coughenour of Washington wrote

specifically about the issue of the power of executive orders attempting to directly overrule without any real legal interference, even if the intention is supposedly to only alter the right. There are specific procedures and methods to incite constitutional change, but there is a reason it has many steps and people involved; giving one person this power would be unwise. Judge Debra Boardman of Maryland focused on the Citizenship Clause and the fact that no court in the country, and especially not the Supreme Court, has ever supported this interpretation, and in fact has been soundly rejected on multiple occasions. Similarly, Judge Leo Sotokin of Massachusetts focused on the ruling of Wong Kim Ark, pointing out that this case left no leeway for the arguments of altering the amendment in this form [3]. 

Trump’s legal team argued instead that they are acting within the Constitution, not outside, specifically citing the

wording of the Fourteenth Amendment and arguing that it “has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’”[4].  Therefore, there is a level of discretion allowed in who is considered a subject. Trump in the past has argued that those deemed loyal to other nations in any way are not considered subjects either, bringing forth deeper questions of how the new administration aims to alter the right of citizenship. 

Not clearly brought up in what has been documented to the public about this case so far but still relevant to the

argument above is the fact that ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ was written in reference to Indigenous peoples, as they have their own separate governing body within the nation and thus not aimed to address the question at hand, but it is up to the Court to declare the modern interpretation of this clause.

​

[3] Scott Bomboy, Birthright Citizenship Cases Arrive at the Supreme Court National Constitution Center, March 14, 2025.​

[4] Id. ​

Power of the Injunction

Trump’s acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris, forms her argument against injunction primarily on the

assertion that “Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere”[5].  The total number of injunctions the Trump administration’s orders have received in one month has been 15, compared to the Biden administration receiving 14 in three years. However, this imbalance instead reflects the difference in content within the orders and their deference to already established law. Ms. Harris argues that the uptick in injunctions is similar to an organized blockade against the Trump administration’s policies. 

The base reasoning behind this bid to end the power of injunction is that it gives too much influence to the lower

courts and offers too wide a range of what counts as a representative party under Article III of the Constitution [6]. They argue at least for the consideration of the injunction to only reflect upon the organizational plaintiffs and perhaps the related states in their rulings [7]. The injunction under this revision would hold the same power as a decision from a state supreme court. It could likely set a sort of precedent for other cases with the policy in question in the same state, but it would lose its functionality and power beyond the courtroom.

The retort from those who argue for the upholding of the power of injunction is that “injunctions are often the

only efficient and fair way to address unlawful or unconstitutional government actions”[8].

​​

[5] Josh Gerstein, Trump Asks Supreme Court to Curb Judges’ Power to Block Policies Nationwide, POLITICO, March 13, 2025.

[6] Lampe, supra note 1 

[7] Scott Bomboy, supra note 3

[8] Josh Gerstein, supra note 5

​

Why is the Injunction so Unique in its Power?

The uniqueness of the power of injunction does not stem from a disregard of other forms of legal protest, but

rather in the timing and effectiveness of it being unmatched in almost the entire rest of the justice system [9].

It is not as if the struggle to pass other laws and decisions is purposeful. The so-called ease that comes with the

injunction comes from the fact that the stakes are high enough to require a fast order, but low enough as it is contesting a policy temporarily rather than permanently. Because of this balance, it is possible to bypass some of the typical protective stages seen in other court debates.

The injunction order through the court can have a fast and sweeping effect, even if the injunction proposal does

not get approved, the fact that it was proposed has shown to be a threat in and of itself to those it is aimed at. Once the injunction passes, debates often begin surrounding similar orders at higher-up courts; this also applies to Trump v. CASA. 

Another important note is that there are no real traceable limitations or abilities of injunction. The true

uniqueness comes from the fact that in a government and its legal system, supposedly strictly defined by its powers and limitations, the injunction has none of that. Although that could be due to a lack of insight on the part of the government in its founding, it is more likely that the power has been continuously adapted to this day and was purposefully left up to the creativity of the court to suit the policies in question. Especially in the era of continuously tested and purposefully ignored legal limits under the current administration. The injunctions non-limitations are a crucial asset for those courts that remain democratic in their attempts to call into question or at least delay such actions.

​

[9] INJUNCTIONS—A Practical Guide to One of the Law’s Most Powerful Tools, Stevens & Lee, November 11, 2024.

​

Implications

As this case is currently going through the court, the ruling itself is yet to be seen, but the question itself raises

important considerations. The way this case is handled could either lead to a reinforced sense of the legitimacy of the law and Constitution by upholding the right to injunction for all levels of court, or it could reaffirm the rising panic of many members of the public about the excess of power under the seat of the executive’s chair by allowing President Trump to quiet another form of protest against his policies.

Judge Coughenour, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, who himself was known for some extreme

Republican policies, accused Trump through this order of “ignoring the rule of law for political and personal gain”[1]. This question is not entirely political; people of both parties have and should contest Trump’s assertation. Whether or not one believes the right to birthright citizenship should be changed, the offense at the very heart of the matter is that through President Trump’s bid to allow his executive orders full power—especially when such orders so plainly aim to modify the Constitution and its interpretation—with little to no legal contest, is him debasing the claim the United States has on calling itself a democracy. 

[10] Andrew Chung & John Kruzel, supra note 2 

Conclusion

The injunction is an incredibly important form of protest because it is one of the closest forms of direct

representation of regular people in a legal setting against controversial policies. What this means is that it is a forum where the concerns of contradictions of rights can be brought, where they are forced to at least be considered, without everyone affected having to necessarily participate in a lawsuit. The injunction also has the ability to raise cases that can bring about change if they are brought to the Supreme Court’s attention, which they often are.

Especially surrounding this executive order altering the right of birthright citizenship. The right of the people to

still be represented in some form in front of the court and contest this order without betraying the trust of their families and friends who may be undocumented is imperative.

The power of injunction is a powerful tool of representation of regular people’s concerns over laws and policies.

By doing so, it keeps a firm check or at least forces policies to be reconsidered if it is believed they are overstepping constitutional or other legal and moral boundaries, making it crucial for this case to be ruled against President Trump in favor of such rights.

Judge Coughenour contended in his finishing statements, “There are moments in the world's history where

people look back and ask, 'Where were the lawyers, where were the judges?’”[11]. As Coughenour argues through his injunction, policies directly and violating established rights and legal procedures must be contested, and if the Supreme Court upholds this power, history will not need to look back at this moment and question, for the rule of law will be upheld. 

[11] Id.