SCOTUS Grants Government Partial Stay in Birthright Citizenship Case

On June 27, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Trump v. CASA, granting the government a stay on universal injunctions issued by federal judges against Executive Order 14160, which would end birthright citizenship for certain categories of people. After three federal judges found the order unconstitutional and issued universal injunctions blocking it, in March, the Trump administration filed an emergency application asking the Court to consider only whether these universal injunctions themselves were legal. The government did not ask the Supreme Court to address—and the Court did not resolve—whether the executive order violates the Citizenship Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

In its 6-3 opinion, the Court found that “[u]niversal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts” under the Judiciary Act of 1789, determining that they lacked historical standing as a form of relief. The Court continued:

In fact, 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. Because the universal injunction lacks a historical pedigree, it falls outside the bounds of a federal court’s equitable authority under the Judiciary Act.

Criticizing the increase in universal injunctions in recent years, the Court suggested that while federal courts have the power to grant “complete relief” to the parties, this relief is “not synonymous with ‘universal relief.’” According to the opinion, “A partial stay will cause no harm to respondents because they will remain protected by the preliminary injunctions to the extent necessary and appropriate to afford them complete relief.” 

The Court noted that the executive order “shall not take effect until 30 days after the date of this opinion,” with the apparent result that, in the absence of new injunctive relief during that time, those born to undocumented immigrants in the United States would no longer be recognized as citizens. 

Several justices offered concurring and dissenting opinions. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor criticized both the Court and the administration for a narrow ruling that would permit unconstitutional actions by the government. 

The Government does not ask for complete stays of the injunctions, as it ordinarily does before this Court. Why? The answer is obvious: To get such relief, the Government would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text, history, this Court’s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice. So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game. It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone. 

In rejecting universal injunctions, the Court pointed to class-action certification as the appropriate avenue for nationwide relief. It reiterated, however, that class-action proceedings can only be undertaken if the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been satisfied. 

You can read the opinions here or below: