Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS): While considering an application filed by US President, Donald Trump against universal injunctions passed by several District Courts, barring the application of the Executive Order on birthright citizenship; the Full Bench of the Court comprising of John Roberts, CJ., and Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor**, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett* and Ketanji Brown Jackson***, JJ., with a ratio of 6:3, held that the universal injunctions exceed the equitable authority that the Congress has given to Federal Courts.
The Court therefore granted the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the universal injunctions, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with a standing to sue.
Background:
Donald Trump, upon becoming the 47th President of the United States of America, passed an Executive Order No. 14160 within “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, which identified circumstances in which a person born in the United States is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and is thus not recognized as an American citizen.
The plaintiffs (respondents herein) alleged that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Nationality Act, 1940 and subsequently several District Courts passed universal injunctions, and in each case, the Court of Appeals denied the Government’s request to stay the sweeping relief.
Trump Administration contended that the District Courts lacked equitable authority to impose universal relief. The issue before the SCOTUS was whether, under the Judiciary Act, 1789, Federal Courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Since the applications did not raise the issue of the validity of the Executive Order, therefore the SCOTUS did not address this issue.
Court’s Assessment:
The majority emphasised that the issue regarding federal courts’ authority to universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive order and whether the same has been granted by the Congress, deserves to be reviewed. The majority opined that the issuance of a universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power. The Judiciary Act, 1789 endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over “all suits . . . in equity,” and still today, this statute is what authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies.
Delving into the history, the majority noted that Universal injunctions are not sufficiently “analogous” to any relief available in the court of equity in England at the time of the founding. Furthermore, under longstanding equity practice in England, there was no remedy remotely like a national injunction. “Nor did founding-era courts of equity in the United States chart a different course. If anything, the approach traditionally taken by federal courts cuts against the existence of such a sweeping remedy”. Universal injunctions were conspicuously non-existent for most of the Nation’s history. Their absence from 18th and 19th century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority. While “equity is flexible,” its flexibility is confined within the broad boundaries of traditional equitable relief. Since the universal injunction lacks a historical pedigree, it falls outside the bounds of a federal court’s equitable authority under the Judiciary Act.
The Court stated that when a federal court enters a universal injunction against the Government, it improperly intrudes on a coordinate branch of the Government and prevents the Government from enforcing its policies against non-parties. The Court noted that the Government herein is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the District Courts’ entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act. “And the balance of equities does not counsel against awarding the Government interim relief”. 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.
“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too”.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the primary dissenting opinion. She stated that the majority ignores entirely whether the President’s Executive Order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the Order’s patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority’s error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case. As every conceivable source of law confirms, birthright citizenship is the law of the land.
The dissenting Judges further opined that the American legal system grew out of English law, which had two primary judicial institutions: the common-law courts and equity courts. Equity courts arose because of the inflexibility of the common-law system; their purpose was to look beyond formal writs and provide remedies where the common law gave inadequate relief. Federal courts have also exercised equitable authority to enjoin universally federal and state laws for more than a century. The universal injunctions of the Citizenship Order fit firmly within that tradition. The right to birthright citizenship is clear, the Citizenship Order is an illegal act, and without the preventive process of injunction, the right will be irreparably injured.
The equities and public interest weigh decisively against the Government and the Citizenship Order is patently unconstitutional. To allow the Government to enforce it against even one newborn child is an assault on our constitutional order and antithetical to equity and public interest. Meanwhile, newborns subject to the Citizenship Order will face the gravest harms imaginable. If the Order does in fact go into effect without further intervention by the District Courts, children will lose, at least for the time being, a most precious right. Affected children also risk losing the chance to participate in American society altogether, unless their parents have sufficient resources to file individual suits or successfully challenge the Citizenship Order in removal proceedings. Indeed, the Order risks the creation of a substantial shadow population for covered children born in the United States who remain here.
The dissenting Judges stated that the Court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution. The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals’ constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully. “Until the day that every affected person manages to become party to a lawsuit and secures for himself injunctive relief, the Government may act lawlessly indefinitely”.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her separate dissenting opinion stated that it is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called “universal injunctions” is, at bottom, a request for the Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behaviour. Justice Jackson noted that the Executive did not ask the Court to determine whether Executive Order No. 14160 complies with the Constitution. Rather, it has come seeking the right to continue enforcing that order regardless. “What the Executive wants, in effect, is for this Court to bless and facilitate its desire to operate in two different zones moving forward: one in which it is required to follow the law (because a particular plaintiff has secured a personal injunction prohibiting its unlawful conduct), and another in which it can choose to violate the law with respect to certain people (those who have yet to sue)”.
If courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to law universally, a dual-track system develops in which courts are ousted as guardians in some situations and compliance with law sometimes becomes a matter of executive prerogative. “Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway. But this Court’s complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise”.
[Trump v. CASA, No. 24A884, decided on 27-6-2025]
*Majority opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett
** Dissenting opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor
*** Separate dissenting opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
