The Supreme Court recently heard the case Trump V. CASA Inc., which is a challenge to Executive Order 14160 aimed to limit birthright citizenship in specific cases involving undocumented parents. CASA, an immigrant rights group, filed suit, and a lower court initially blocked the order nationwide. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling reversed this injunction, stating that lower courts can’t issue nationwide blocks against federal policies.
Nationwide injunctions have been used to halt federal actions across the country, often in fast-moving policy disputes. While supporters argue injunctions safeguard constitutional rights during legal review, critics believe they give individual judges too much authority over federal matters. The Supreme Court’s decision cuts back on this tool, reinforcing that broad legal blocks require full judicial review.
While the Supreme Court didn’t decide on the constitutionality of Executive Order 14160, its ruling makes it harder for immigrant advocates to prevent its enforcement across the country. This could create uneven protections for immigrants, with birthright citizenship recognized in only some states.
What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court’s decision? Should courts have the authority to block federal policies nationwide? What do you think are the long-term implications?
No, 1 federal court judge should not be able to do a blanket injunction. The supreme court should and did decide to not allow that to happen.