The Shrinking Reach of Relief: Trump v. CASA and the Limits of Lower Court Power 

For over a century, lower federal courts have been issuing nationwide injunctions against state laws, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this practice despite critics claiming it violates Article III of the Constitution, which limits federal courts to resolving “cases” and  “controversies” involving specific parties as opposed to issuing orders universally (1). The issue arose again in the 2025 Trump v. CASA, Inc., a case that raised questions about the scope of executive authority and the balance between judicial powers and the protection of constitutional rights.  

In CASA, the Supreme Court determined whether federal courts have the authority to issue nationwide or universal injunctions—orders that block the government from enforcing the law or policy at issue against anyone, not just the plaintiffs. The case came to be after several district courts blocked President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which reinterpreted the  Fourteenth Amendment’s birthright-citizenship clause to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children with non-citizen parents. Lower courts issued universal injunctions to prevent the order, but the Supreme Court only partially stayed those rulings. Chief Justice Roberts, leading the majority, held that such broad relief “likely exceeds equitable authority Congress has given to federal courts” under the Judiciary Act of 1789 and Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement (2). Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch reasoned in their concurrence that the equitable remedies which federal courts are permitted to issue do not permit universal injunctions and that, rather, they may “redress the plaintiff’s particular injury.” In dissent, Justice Sotomayor argued that this historical reading was too rigid and failed to account for modern reality, in which executive actions often impose nationwide harms tainted by “party specific” understandings of equity (3). This decision dramatically altered a national debate: rather than discussing the heart of the case—birthright citizenship—CASA questioned whether the judiciary can or should act with  nationwide reach when an order is in clear violation of the Constitution, thereby threatening millions of lives.  

CASA’s holding marked a turning point in the debate over nationwide injunctions.  Limiting injunctions to immediate parties may reduce inconsistent rulings and protect executive authority, but it also greatly restricts the judiciary’s ability to check federal power, especially during times of constitutional harm. In an interdependent checks-and-balances system, executive power is greatly dominating the scale. When an executive order can affect millions of people instantly, this limit on judicial powers fails to protect systemic violations—there is no line of defense for the citizens of the United States. What good is the Court if it isn’t allowed to protect the people? Vast populations have been left without redress in the wake of CASA. The courts should be able to step up and provide relief, nationwide, if necessary, in cases involving broad executive actions, especially where the Constitution is involved. The judiciary’s role is not to serve political interests but to uphold the Constitution itself, a principle rooted in our Framers’ intent to prevent unchecked power.

Nationwide injunctions have historically been used to check executive power regardless of which party controls the White House. For example, in 2016, under Obama’s presidency, a federal court issued an injunction blocking implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) Program, preventing the policy from being implemented during ongoing  litigation (4). The Biden administration faced a nationwide injunction in Biden v. Nebraska (2023) when the Supreme Court decided on a nationwide injunction halting former President Biden’s  federal student loan forgiveness program, holding that the administration lacked statutory authority under the HEROES Act to implement such broad debt relief (5). Nationwide injunctions are a check on executive authority regardless of party affiliation. They are used to ensure that any administration, either Republican or Democratic, cannot implement unconstitutional policies. The power of these injunctions lies in their capacity to provide uniform remedies in the face of widespread harm, not in partisan politics.  

These landmark cases are not anomalies. The use of nationwide injunctions has actually expanded significantly in the last few decades. A Harvard Law Review dataset tracking every nationwide injunction from 1963 to 2023 found the following data: 

Published November 1, 2025 By Sadie Bostwick

Immigration accounted for over half of these cases, with the remainder covering issues like  healthcare, military policy, and pandemic mandates. The Congressional Research Service similarly claims that a majority of these orders came from Democratic-appointed judges, reflecting how politically polarized injunctions have become, even though their use came before our modern sense of bipartisanship However, this surge more accurately reflects the rising  popularity of executive power. The judiciary is not overreaching; it is responding with equal scope and proportionality. Without this power, courts could only protect those directly involved,  those who had the resources and the education to have representation, even when unconstitutional harm is widespread. This would disproportionately affect low-income individuals, immigrants, and marginalized communities who lack the means to afford a lengthy lawsuit, never mind multiple lawsuits in separate jurisdictions. For example, under CASA’s logic, the children of non-citizen parents in different states would each need to file their own case to seek protection from the same unlawful executive order. This fragmentation would turn constitutional rights into privileges that only those who have means to litigate could access, thereby undermining the purpose of equal protection under the law.

Of course, there are legitimate concerns about inconsistency and forum-shopping: one district court might enjoin a nationwide policy while another upholds it. However, the solution should not be to abolish nationwide injunctions; it should be to refine and tailor their application. Courts can establish more transparent standards, clauses, tests, prongs—such as requiring demonstrated nationwide harm—while maintaining their ability to prevent systemic rights violations. Eliminating them would leave citizens vulnerable in moments when their  constitutional rights need protection the most. 

The answer is not to weaken the courts out of fear and suppression, but to trust them to  use the tools they were given to defend constitutional rights when other branches fail to. Nationwide injunctions are not acts of judicial overreach; they are acts of constitutional duty and out of necessity to protect the people. When executive orders threaten to upend lives overnight, the judiciary must be able to respond with equal force and reach. To strip courts of this power would leave millions defenseless at the moment these unprecedented rules of law demand the  loudest defense.

1.  U.S. Constitution, art. III, sec 2.

2. Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884, slip op. at 2 (U.S. June 27, 2025),  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a8848n59.pdf

3. Sotomayor, J., dissenting in Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884, slip op. at 8 (U.S. June 27, 2025), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/24A884#writing-24A884_DISSENT_8

4. Justia Law. “United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).” Accessed October 26, 2025.  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/15-674/

5. Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. ___, No. 22-506 (June 30, 2023), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22- 506_nmip.pdf

6. Congress.gov. "Nationwide Injunctions: Law, History, and Proposals for Reform." Accessed October 26, 2025.  https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46902.