Oral Argument Breakdown: Trump v. CASA, Inc.

In Trump v. CASA, Inc., argued on May 21, 2025, the justices grappled with the contentious issue of national (or universal) injunctions that block the enforcement of a federal executive order beyond the specific parties involved in a lawsuit. The case centers on Executive Order 14,160, issued by President Trump on January 20, 2025, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." This order aimed to reinterpret the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. Multiple district courts issued nationwide injunctions to halt the order’s enforcement, prompting the government to seek a stay from the Supreme Court.

The oral arguments revealed sharp divisions among the justices, with their questions offering hints about their leanings on the propriety of universal injunctions, though the merits of the executive order were not formally before the Court.

Background and Context

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The executive order challenged in this case asserts that children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., thus excluding them from birthright citizenship. This interpretation conflicts with longstanding precedent, notably United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which established that children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents are U.S. citizens.

The government, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that universal injunctions—court orders that block a policy nationwide, not just for the plaintiffs—exceed the judicial power under Article III, violate traditional equitable principles, and create practical problems like forum shopping and rushed judicial decisions. The respondents, represented by Jeremy M. Feigenbaum (for the states) and Kelsi B. Corkran (for individual plaintiffs and organizations), defended the injunctions, arguing they are necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs and prevent irreparable harm, particularly given the order’s apparent conflict with settled precedent.

Key Arguments

Government’s Position (D. John Sauer):

• Article III and Equity Limits: Sauer argued that Article III limits judicial remedies to redressing the injuries of the plaintiffs before the court, citing cases like Warth v. Seldin and Gill v. Whitford. He contended that universal injunctions improperly extend relief to non-parties, bypassing the requirements of class certification under Rule 23. He also asserted that such injunctions exceed the equitable authority granted by the Judiciary Act of 1789, which he claimed did not contemplate nationwide relief.

• Historical Precedent: Sauer disputed the respondents’ reliance on the "bill of peace," a historical equitable remedy, arguing it was akin to modern class actions, binding only represented parties. He traced the rise of universal injunctions to the 1960s, citing Wirtz v. Local 153 (1963) as an early example, and argued they were rare until recent decades.

• Practical Problems: Sauer highlighted a "cascade" of 40 universal injunctions since January 20, 2025, mostly from five judicial districts, claiming they encourage forum shopping, disrupt percolation of legal issues, and overburden the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. He argued they asymmetrically favor plaintiffs, who need only win in one district, while the government must prevail everywhere.

• Merits (Informally): While not formally before the Court, Sauer defended the executive order, arguing it aligns with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, which he claimed was intended to grant citizenship to children of former slaves, not undocumented immigrants. He cited 19th-century authorities emphasizing domicile as a prerequisite for citizenship.

States’ Position (Jeremy M. Feigenbaum):

• Complete Relief for States: Feigenbaum, representing 23 states, argued that a nationwide injunction is necessary to remedy their Article III injuries, including significant financial burdens from verifying citizenship for benefits programs and administrative chaos from varying citizenship rules across states. He cited New Jersey’s 6,000 out-of-state births annually, which would complicate Medicaid and other benefits administration if citizenship status depended on birthplace.

• Historical Support: Feigenbaum traced universal injunctions to the bill of peace, Equity Rule 48, and 19th-century tax collection injunctions, arguing they have historical roots in American equity practice. He cited early 20th-century cases like Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) to show courts granting broad relief.

• Limiting Principles: He proposed three circumstances where universal injunctions are appropriate: (1) when necessary to remedy plaintiffs’ harms (this case), (2) when authorized by Congress (e.g., APA vacatur), and (3) in extraordinary circumstances where alternatives like class actions are unworkable. He acknowledged concerns about overuse but rejected a categorical ban.

• Merits Context: Feigenbaum emphasized the executive order’s conflict with Wong Kim Ark and over a century of executive practice, arguing that the strength of the states’ merits case justifies broad relief. He suggested the Court could grant certiorari before judgment to resolve the merits expeditiously.

Individual Plaintiffs’ Position (Kelsi B. Corkran):

• Complete Relief and Extraordinary Circumstances: Corkran argued that a nationwide injunction is necessary to provide complete relief to individual plaintiffs, who face administrative unworkability and risks of detention or deportation if required to disclose their status to claim citizenship. She also invoked extraordinary circumstances, citing the order’s violation of fundamental constitutional rights and its conflict with settled precedent.

• Historical and Procedural Arguments: Corkran disputed the government’s claim that Rule 23 is the sole channel for broad relief, noting that Rule 71 allows non-parties to enforce certain equitable orders and that the Rules Committee rejected a proposal to ban non-party relief. She cited cases like Barnett and Pierce to show historical precedent for universal injunctions.

• Practical Concerns: She argued that class certification is not always feasible, especially for associational standing cases or when discovery delays relief. She proposed limiting principles for universal injunctions, such as facial constitutional challenges involving fundamental rights, to guide lower courts.

• Merits and Urgency: Corkran stressed the order’s clear illegality under Wong Kim Ark, a federal statute, and executive practice, urging the Court to consider the merits via certiorari before judgment to prevent irreparable harm during prolonged litigation.

Justices’ Questions and Potential Leanings

The justices’ questions revealed their concerns about the scope of judicial power, the historical basis for universal injunctions, and the practical implications of limiting or allowing them. While the merits were not formally at issue, several justices pressed on how the Court could resolve the underlying citizenship question expeditiously. Below is an analysis of key justices’ questions and hints about their potential rulings:

• Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.: Roberts focused on practical solutions, asking Sauer if the Court could act expeditiously on the merits (e.g., via certiorari before judgment) and questioning Feigenbaum on why universal injunctions should be limited to narrow circumstances. His emphasis on the Court’s ability to resolve conflicts quickly suggests a preference for addressing the merits over a broad ruling on injunctions. He appeared skeptical of universal injunctions but open to case-specific relief, particularly if percolation could lead to a definitive Supreme Court ruling.

• Justice Clarence Thomas: Thomas probed the historical origins of universal injunctions, questioning Sauer and Feigenbaum about the bill of peace and noting that such injunctions were rare before the 1960s. His questions suggest a conservative view, likely aligning with his concurrence in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), where he criticized universal injunctions as ahistorical. He may favor restricting or banning them, emphasizing Article III limits.

• Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.: Alito expressed concern about the practical problems of universal injunctions, describing district judges as potential "monarchs" prone to overreach. He asked Sauer if allowing state standing or emergency class certification would mitigate these issues and pressed Feigenbaum on whether the Court could decide the injunction question without peeking at the merits. His skepticism about universal injunctions and reluctance to address the merits suggest he may support a narrow ruling limiting such injunctions, possibly without reaching Article III.

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Sotomayor was the most critical of the government’s position, citing four Supreme Court precedents (Wong Kim Ark and others) that she argued the executive order violates. She challenged Sauer on whether Article III prohibits even the Supreme Court from issuing universal relief and suggested certiorari before judgment to resolve the merits quickly. Her questions indicate strong support for the injunctions and a willingness to address the merits, viewing the order as clearly unconstitutional.

• Justice Elena Kagan: Kagan expressed frustration with the government’s strategy, noting that it has no incentive to appeal the merits if it can continue enforcing the order against non-plaintiffs. She asked Sauer how the Court could reach the merits expeditiously and pressed Feigenbaum on the magnet effect of varying citizenship rules. Her concerns about a "catch me if you can" regime suggest she may support upholding the injunctions or finding a procedural path (e.g., certiorari before judgment) to resolve the merits, particularly given the order’s apparent illegality.

• Justice Neil Gorsuch: Gorsuch questioned whether the Court needed to reach the Article III question, suggesting a narrower ruling based on equitable principles. He pressed Feigenbaum on limiting principles for universal injunctions and asked all counsel how the merits could be reached quickly. His questions reflect a cautious approach, likely favoring restrictions on universal injunctions but open to equitable relief in extraordinary cases. He may prefer a ruling that avoids constitutional overreach while addressing the case’s urgency.

• Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh: Kavanaugh focused on Rule 23 as a potential solution, asking Sauer and Corkran why class certification couldn’t address the need for broad relief. He also explored the rise of universal injunctions, attributing it to increased executive actions due to legislative gridlock. His questions suggest a pragmatic approach, leaning toward channeling relief through class actions to avoid universal injunctions while ensuring plaintiffs can seek broad relief.

• Justice Amy Coney Barrett: Barrett probed the historical basis for universal injunctions, questioning Sauer on the bill of peace and Feigenbaum on 1789 Chancery practices. She asked Corkran about Rule 71 and whether states or individuals need bucket-one relief. Her questions indicate a focus on historical fidelity and procedural rigor, suggesting she may favor limiting universal injunctions but allowing tailored relief for states or classes if justified by precedent.

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: Jackson questioned the concept of universal injunctions, arguing they are not about giving relief to non-parties but restraining defendants from unlawful conduct. She expressed concern about a "catch me if you can" regime where the government continues unlawful actions until every affected person sues. Her questions suggest strong support for the injunctions, viewing them as a legitimate exercise of judicial power to enforce the law, and a desire to resolve the merits quickly.

Analysis and Likely Outcomes

The oral arguments highlight a divide on the Court. Justices Thomas, Alito, and possibly Gorsuch appear skeptical of universal injunctions, emphasizing Article III limits and historical precedent. They may favor a ruling that restricts or bans such injunctions, potentially vacating the lower court orders and requiring plaintiffs to seek class certification or individual relief. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, conversely, seem inclined to uphold the injunctions, citing the executive order’s clear conflict with precedent and the need to prevent widespread harm. They may push for a merits ruling or a narrow affirmance of the injunctions based on the case’s unique circumstances.

Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett appear to be the swing votes. Roberts’ focus on expeditious merits resolution suggests he may prefer a procedural solution, such as granting certiorari before judgment, over a broad injunction ruling. Kavanaugh’s interest in Rule 23 indicates he may support a middle ground, allowing class actions as an alternative to universal injunctions. Barrett’s historical inquiries suggest she may align with a conservative approach but could be persuaded by tailored relief for states or classes.

The Court faces several potential paths:

1. Vacate the Injunctions: Rule that universal injunctions exceed Article III or equitable authority, vacating the lower court orders and requiring plaintiffs to seek class certification or individual relief. This would align with Thomas, Alito, and possibly Gorsuch but risks prolonging the citizenship dispute.

2. Uphold the Injunctions: Affirm the injunctions as necessary to provide complete relief or address extraordinary circumstances, emphasizing the order’s apparent illegality. This would align with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson but may not address broader concerns about injunction overuse.

3. Narrow Ruling: Limit universal injunctions to specific circumstances (e.g., complete relief for states or fundamental rights violations) without a categorical ban, remanding for further analysis. This could attract Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett as a compromise.

4. Grant Certiorari Before Judgment: Address the merits directly to resolve the citizenship question, sidestepping the injunction debate. This could unify the Court but requires a procedural leap.

The justices’ questions suggest a majority may lean toward restricting universal injunctions, given concerns about their proliferation and historical pedigree. However, the case’s unique context—multiple lower courts ruling against the government, strong precedent supporting birthright citizenship, and significant harms to states and individuals—may lead to a narrower ruling that upholds or modifies the injunctions while articulating limiting principles. The Court’s decision will likely have far-reaching implications for judicial power, executive authority, and the balance of equities in constitutional litigation.

These oral arguments underscore the tension between judicial restraint and the need to check potentially unlawful executive actions. While the government argues that universal injunctions usurp judicial and executive power, the respondents counter that they are essential to prevent irreparable harm and uphold constitutional norms. The justices’ questions reveal a spectrum of views, with some favoring strict limits on injunctions and others prioritizing swift resolution of the citizenship issue. The Court’s ruling, expected in the coming months, will shape the scope of equitable remedies and the judiciary’s role in policing executive overreach, potentially redefining the landscape of constitutional litigation.

---

Featured Articles