Big Win for Trump at SCOTUS

The court's opinion in the administration's challenge to broad use of preliminary injunctions is a big win for the president and for separate of powers but unknown consequences are ahead.

I’ll have more on this later—especially the cat fight between Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson that emerged in this decision—but I wanted to pass this along ASAP.

In a much anticipated decision, the Supreme Court today overturned the use of universal preliminary injunctions—court orders that extend the halt on a certain policy from one jurisdiction to cover the entire country—against the president.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Amy Coney Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, the court determined that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” Further, the court concluded that “nothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding, or for that matter, for more than a century thereafter. Thus, under the Judiciary Act, federal courts lack authority to use them.”

The opinion is here: 24A884 Trump v. CASA, Inc.

This case relates to the president’s executive order denying automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to mothers here illegally or here on a temporary basis (students, etc.). Three district court judges—in Washington state, New Jersey, and Massachusetts—not only blocked the order within their jurisdictions but made the ban effective across the country via universal preliminary injunctions. The use of such broad based orders has become common practice since January 2025 with at least four dozen such injunctions issued so far during this administration.

As the Trump Department of Justice noted in its plea to the court:

“For the first 170 years of American jurisprudence, nationwide injunctions were virtually unknown. Their use remained sparing until this century, when they saw a dramatic upsurge in 2017, followed by an explosion in the last three months. These injunctions exceed the district courts’ authority under Article III and gravely encroach on the President’s executive power under Article II. This Court’s intervention is urgently needed to restore the constitutional balance of separated powers.”

While this decision kicks the matter back to the lower courts for now, it does create some unknowns and a possibly messier mess than the judiciary has now. In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Alito warned of the work-around anti-Trump litigants and judges could find:

“I join the opinion of the Court but write separately to note two related issues that are left unresolved and potentially threaten the practical significance of today’s decision: the availability of third-party standing and class certification.” (The former concern relates to several blue states who sued the president over the birthright citizenship order.) “Lax enforcement of the requirements for third-party standing and class certification would create a potentially significant loophole to today’s decision. Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools. I do not understand the Court’s decision to reflect any disagreement with these concerns, so I join its decision in full.”

Alito specifically addressed the pervasive problem of judges conferring “class” status to anyone subject to the president’s policies—the Alien Enemies Act being one such issue—in light of SCOTUS’ decision today. “The class action is a powerful tool, and we have accordingly held that class ‘certification is proper only if the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis,’” Alito wrote. “Putting the kibosh on universal injunctions does nothing to disrupt Rule 23’s requirements.” (Rule 23 governs how the court can determine a class action lawsuit.)

“Of course, Rule 23 may permit the certification of nationwide classes in some discrete scenarios. But district courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23. Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of ‘nationwide class relief,’ and today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.”

More later--also expecting some court filings pertaining to this decision today and early next week.