The Constitution provides that anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a United States citizen. Today, the Supreme Court decided the case of Trump v. CASA, a challenge to Executive Order 14160, which seeks to end the right to birthright citizenship for individuals born in the United States whose parents had certain immigration statuses.
The Court did not decide the merits of whether that Executive Order is constitutional or whether some babies, even if born within the United States, are not U.S. citizens. Instead, a 6-3 majority of Justices decided the case on procedural grounds: they held that the remedy issued by the district courts who heard the case was inappropriate. Three separate district courts had issued a “nationwide injunction”—which the Supreme Court now calls “universal injunctions” — ruling that the Executive Order was unconstitutional and could not be enforced anywhere the United States. The Supreme Court held that these nationwide injunctions are an inappropriate form of relief when they go beyond what is necessary to give the specific parties before the court “complete relief.” In the majority’s view, the district courts should have decided this case only with respect to the parties before it, i.e., the individuals and organizations that challenged the suit. This lawsuit was not a certified class action.
Importantly, the Court ruled that the Executive Order does not go into effect until 30 days from today.
As it stands, and as pointed out in the dissent, this ruling raises more questions than answers. Is the Court envisioning that some fundamental constitutional questions, such as birthright citizenship, could have different answers and applications in different parts of the country? Apparently so. For example, if the federal government enacts policies that are clearly contrary to the plain language of the Constitution—such as the end of slavery (13th Amendment), the right of women to vote (19th Amendment), or any other such clearly established tenets of our democracy—district courts may now not be able to issue nationwide relief.
It is possible that the parties will seek class certification—which the majority appears to view as the appropriate vehicle for nationwide relief—and attempt to obtain nationwide relief on the underlying question. We expect the district courts to issue further orders within the next month.
An important takeaway for anyone who may be expecting a baby in the next few weeks, is that nothing changes for the next 30 days and anyone born in the United States is still a U.S. citizen. This ruling will make it challenging for courts to craft fulsome relief in cases involving issues of national application, such as those related to immigration policies.
Amid Reports of Mass Visa ‘Pause,’ Groups File Emergency Motion to Enforce Court Order Striking Down 75-Country Visa Ban
Published Aug 26, 2026 Immigrant families, workers, and legal assistance groups harmed by the Trump administration’s 75-country ban on immigrant visas filed an emergency motion to enforce Friday’s court order and judgment in CLINIC v....
CLINIC v. Rubio
This lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s sweeping suspension of immigrant visa processing for people from 75 countries.
Last update: Aug 26, 2026
Federal Court Strikes Down Trump’s Discriminatory 75-Country Visa Ban
Published Aug 21, 2026 In a major victory for families, fairness, and the rule of law, a federal court in New York struck down the Trump administration’s blanket, nationality-based “public charge” ban on immigrant visa processing for people from 75...
Community Alert: Traveling on “advance parole” now triggers 3- and 10-year bars
Published Aug 17, 2026 The Board of Immigration Appeals has changed the consequences of traveling on “advance parole.” If you are thinking about traveling outside the U.S. on “advance parole” and you have been in the U.S. without permission for 180+ days, now...
Analyzing the Supreme Court’s Dangerous Decision in Trump v. CASA
Jun 27, 2025 The Supreme Court's ruling on nationwide injunctions and birthright citizenship in Trump v. CASA raises more questions than answers.