Universal injunction is defined as a court order that prohibits the government from enforcing a law or order against anyone, not just the plaintiff [1]. Does it undermine the power of the executive branch to create and enforce laws, or does it simply protect U.S. citizens from seemingly unconstitutional orders issued by the government? Giving the judicial branch extended powers to protect American citizens on a nation-wide level, not just within the plaintiffs, could potentially strengthen the U.S. democracy as a whole by guaranteeing the protection of constitutional rights. 

 

[1] Scott Neuman, What is a universal injunction and how did the Supreme Court limit its use?, NPR, (Jun. 27, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/06/27/nx-s1-5448821/universal-injunction-supreme-court-executive-order-birthright.

 

Introduction 

       In the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1, it states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside [2].” In President Trump’s executive order Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, he claims that this clause has been misinterpreted by many Americans. This clause was argued to have never applied universally to all births on U.S. soil. There are two circumstances, according to this executive order, where individuals should not be recognized as U.S. citizens: (1) When the mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth, or, (2) when the mother’s stay was temporary or lawful but not permanent, and the father was not a citizen or green card holder. This order is prospective and is to apply thirty days after the order’s date; however, due to judicial intervention, this controversial order has been postponed. The question being addressed is if universal injunction is an overstep by the judicial branch, even if it is protecting the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, and this recent executive order will be used as a guidepost. 

 

[2] U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 

 

Background 

       In Trump v. Casa, Inc. [3] plaintiffs brought the case to state courts, consisting of several individuals and organizations, arguing that the executive order, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, violates the 14th amendment in which anyone born on U.S. soil is considered a U.S. citizen. Lower courts issued a universal injunction, meaning that until further notice this executive order is not applicable to anyone born under the circumstances listed in the introduction. The Trump administration appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision in fact did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, instead, it ruled that according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, the lower courts had overstepped their jurisdiction by issuing a universal injunction; injunctions should only protect the plaintiffs, not everyone affected. 

 

[3] Exec. Order No. 14,160, 90 C.F.R 8449 (2025) 

 

Limiting judicial remedies 

       Is it important to strictly follow guidelines that are 236 years old, and could very well not be as beneficial as the world progresses? The issue of the living constitution debate argues that as the U.S. modernizes and evolves, so should the way we interpret the constitution. The framers of the constitution could not foresee the changes we have undertaken, therefore we must adapt the key principles brought up within the constitution to align with modern life. However, this argument is not taken into consideration within Trump v. Casa, Inc. The Supreme Court argued that it is vital to uphold the historical standings of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and maintain the separation of powers, still giving the executive branch the power to issue executive orders, while allowing the judicial branch to intervene without overstepping their bounds. If we behave in accordance with this act, the judicial branch is only allowed to provide relief to the individuals that brought this case to the court, not to everyone in the United States. Even if an executive order is unconstitutional, it may not be resolved until numerous separate cases are filed, strengthening the power of the executive branch, and limiting the power of the judicial branch. 

 

Criminal law 

       Trump vs. Casa Inc. not only questions constitutional law, but it also overlaps with criminal law. This executive order could increase the stigma around immigrants, since immigration is treated like a criminal act, resulting in measures such as deportation and detentions. The consequence of limiting the power of the judicial branch is allowing arguably unconstitutional orders such as this one to go into place, and oppressing marginalized groups until each affected group brings their own case. This means that these marginalized groups could be impacted by this order before courts even get the chance to hear the case. This order could also reject the due process clause of the 14th amendment as it states, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law [4].” Due process, as it’s written, applies to anyone on U.S. grounds, regardless of citizenship status. Therefore, the deportation process as a whole does not reflect due process in our democracy, and even though the individuals who are being deported are not citizens, they are still on U.S. land and are subject to our constitutional implementations. Within the birthright citizenship debate, the due process clause is neglected through creating a class of people who are born in the United States with no constitutional protections and undermining the equal protection clause since the children affected would be treated differently than others’ solely based on their parents citizenship status, even though they were born in the United States. The use of universal injunction within the judicial branch would prevent overcriminalization for things that were once considered a right, as well as protection of the interpretations of the constitution. 

 

[4] U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 

 

Broader implications 

       The first, and probably most prevalent issue in not implementing universal injunction is an unequal distribution of constitutional rights. Why is it fair that the plaintiff is the only one granted legal protection of their constitutional rights when the scope of impact is much broader than just within the plaintiff? The next two consist of logistic issues; the first issue that is presented due to the lack of universal injunction is forum shopping. This will make plaintiffs more likely to seek favorable results by the level of liberalism or conservatism a state exerts. For example, if they seek more liberal case decisions, they will go to Maryland state court, whereas if they seek more conservative case decisions, they will go to Texas state court. This will lead to different jurisdictions by allowing a law to be blocked in one state, but not the other- in reference to Trump v. Casa, inc. someone could be a citizen in one state but a noncitizen in the next. Logistically, this does not make much sense in a democracy since all individuals are subject to the same laws, and no single person is above the law. Another logistical issue is that since courts can only protect the citizens within their jurisdiction, the federal law is distributed disproportionately. If an executive order by the federal government is enforced, it should either be enforced in all fifty states, or none of them. Issues such as birthright citizenship impact countless families, not just the plaintiffs who bring the case to court, so being able to use universal injunctions would allow one voice to speak for thousands of silenced ones, and allow equal distribution of the law. 

​

Future risks 

       Without the judicial branch being able to effectively check the executive branch, the power of the executive branch could expand extremely. This allows the executive branch to productively enforce unconstitutional laws with little to no legal intervention. Another issue is that the line between criminal and civil cases has been crossed due to immigration enforcement. Immigration is a civil issue, but often gets treated like a criminal issue when considering deportation and detention patterns. Alongside the more visible issues, it also has constitutional issues by making the 14th amendments Equal Protection Clause conditional rather than universal by having the injunctions only apply to the plaintiff rather than everyone impacted by the executive order. 

 

Counterarguments 

       Critics of universal injunction have the constitution on their side in the sense that universal injunction is not a traditional value. Article III of the constitution empowers courts “to decide cases for parties, not questions for everyone [5].” That being said, adopting a nationwide order block is considered unconstitutional, and courts should only be able to protect the plaintiffs in front of them. Another argument against universal injunctions is that they are sometimes viewed as rushed decisions that are sought out at the beginning of a case before a full trial has yet occurred. These are important things to note when evaluating universal injunction, but there are things that can be done to implement a weaker version of universal injunction that will still be able to preserve the constitutional rights of citizens. The executive order Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship would be a fair case to issue a universal injunction as it would be used within reasonable jurisdiction since the intent is to protect U.S. citizens. 1898 was the year that the United States Supreme Court confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark [6] that children born in the United States to immigrant parents were still entitled to U.S. citizenship. Overturning this would lead to violation of citizens' previously confirmed constitutional rights, and it would be unfortunate if the judicial branch had no authority in the intervention process, which is a prime reason why universal injunction should be an option. It is definitely agreeable, though, that the judicial branch should not be granted too much power in order to preserve the historical integrity of the United States government, but in outlier cases such as this one, it could be considered appropriate to use judicial intervention in order to issue a nationwide block. 

 

[5] Hannah Pugh, et al., The Universal Injunction Debate, THE REGULATORY REVIEW, (Mar. 27, 2021), https://www.theregreview.org/2021/03/27/saturday-seminar-universal-injunction-debate/. 

[6] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). 

​

Conclusion 

       To conclude, Trump v. Casa, Inc. is a perfect and relevant example of the restriction of judicial oversight and expansion of executive powers. In the scope of criminal and immigration law, the decision in Trump v. Casa Inc. is monumental in reiterating how much the judicial branch can actually check the executive branch, and how the executive branch can undermine equal constitutional protection. The results of limiting judicial tools such as universal injunctions risk turning constitutional rights into a privilege that you can only gain through lawsuits. If it is achievable to reinterpret what is written in the constitution, why is reinterpreting the powers of the judicial branch through the judiciary act not considered? We should give the judicial branch the power to advocate for U.S. citizens alongside the executive branch through universal injunctions placed, within reason, in order to protect the integrity of the constitution and the rights of every individual born in the United States.