Supreme Court Ruling on Birthright Citizenship Case (Trump v. CASA)

In a 6–3 ruling authored by Justice Barrett, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA to limit the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts—central to current litigation involving former President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 aimed at curbing birthright citizenship.

What the Court Decided:

• Lower federal courts cannot automatically issue blanket nationwide injunctions blocking executive actions; instead, injunctions must be narrowly tailored to provide “complete relief” only to the plaintiffs before each court.

• The decision did not address the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship rule itself—only the scope of judicial relief.

• The Court temporarily stayed lower-court nationwide injunctions for 30 days, allowing those rulings to be revisited.

Immediate Impact:

• Trump’s executive order may begin to take effect in jurisdictions that were not party to prior nationwide injunctions, beginning around July 27, 2025.

• Expected outcomes:

  • Class actions and state-led lawsuits may emerge as new mechanisms to secure broader protections

  • In jurisdictions without injunctions or pending litigation, the order could be enforced absent further court intervention.

  • Litigation Surge: Plaintiffs and states will likely file class-action lawsuits to re-establish nationwide relief.

  • Local Injunctions: District courts may issue restricted injunctions covering only their jurisdictions.

  • Constitutional Review: The underlying constitutionality of EO 14160 remains unresolved and will likely be revisited when SCOTUS hears full arguments—possibly in October.

  • Administrative Action: Federal and state agencies must plan for an interim expanded enforcement window starting in late July.

Client Takeaways:

• Companies and institutions in states without active injunctions should prepare for potential changes to certification processes, documentation, and services related to birthright citizenship.

• Federal compliance teams, especially in healthcare, education, and welfare sectors, must begin contingency planning for mixed eligibility statuses.

• The order’s constitutionality continues to be litigated, so maintaining flexibility in policy and implementation will be essential.