This article explains clearly what happened in our supreme court’s ruling, for those of us who have not studied constitutional law. Justice was not an issue for them.
The bottom line is that, while nationwide injunctions shoukl rarely be allowed. But this is precisely one of the cases in which it should because it involves (a) a constitutional provision whose meaning has not been subject to much, if any, ambiguity and (b) the failure to maintain such an injunction creates a practical problem where a family moves with a child from a state in which the injunction is in place to another state for some reason, perhaps because a parent obtained a new job in that other state, to one where the executive order is still in effect. In the new state of residence, is the child an American citizen? This opens up a terrible Pandora's box where Trump can continue to issue patently illegal executive orders but courts will not be in a position to properly enjoin their effect.
I think this is a very fair critique. As a person who is also a lawyer, this is the approach I have taken when trying to explain my views on this issue to non-lawyers: there's a technical policy way of looking at the case, and a practical effects way.
In the first category, I come down on the side of not liking nationwide injunctions given the potential for abuse we saw during the Biden administration. And, I agree with the professor Brian spoke with yesterday who said basically that liberals/progressives need to shake off their rose colored glasses about court intervention and realize that doubling or tripling down on judicial review with a judiciary this overwhelmingly hostile to your interests is a bad strategy.
Also, while I haven't seen it raised anywhere, I've always thought that nationwide injunctions were a little bit incongruous with the organization of our federal courts. In theory, district courts don't set binding precedent, they just produce persuasive authority. Only appellate courts and SCOTUS have the ability to bind other decisions, and then for the appellate courts only within their circuits. So it's always been weird to me that a court that is incapable of creating binding precedent _even within its own district or circuit_ in a final decision can affect policy at a nationwide level with an injunction, even if that injunction is preliminary!
All that said, everything the author writes here about how this court in particular always seems to rig the game in favor of republican administrations is true. I don't blame anyone for viewing this cynically, when the actual best case scenario is the court is so absorbed in theory that they ignore practicalities (and every other scenario, like them approving of the EO, is markedly worse).
The Strict Scrutiny ladies have coined a term for this: doctrinal gerrymandering—i.e. carving out exceptions to general principles so as to support their ideological preferences. They were referring in particular to Mahmoud (opt out for satanic gay storybooks) and Free Speech Coalition (less scrutiny for porn restrictions).
You proved that the 6 conservative justices are political hacks: they didn’t take up the case of nationwide injunctions when the Biden administration requested it, but what a co-ink-e-dink, they do when Trump requests it. They have one set of rules for Democratic politicians and another set for Republicans.
Might the court be playing “three dimensional chess”? They know that the executive order is unconstitutional, that a class action can be easily established, that they will uphold a lower court’s ruling that the executive order is unconstitutional and meanwhile, the Trump regime becomes more unpopular and makes a fool of itself, again. This is not how I would expect or want Supreme Court justices to behave, but maybe they are thinking several steps ahead in an attempt to save the republic and rule of law. I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories but at least mine is benevolent in nature! How far-fetched is my thinking? I think the justices are 10x smarter than the Trump regime. Might they be throwing crumbs to attract the idiots into destroying themselves?
while I don't disagree with this position I still can't help but feel we ask the courts to do too much as an institution. Why is there no commotion I am aware of on the legislative front. I feel as i have no political party at the moment. I am starting to think the Democrats in power as a group are largely sympathetic to the Trump agenda.
The congressional GOP is a zombie army and the Dems terrified mice. Most judges are showing backbone and it’s Roberts et al who’re pissing all over them.
"In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court could have definitively decided that President Trump’s executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship is flagrantly unconstitutional and may not be enforced. Instead, the court announced that it alone can decide such matters on a nationwide basis — and that it would not do so here."-Kate Shaw
Thank you. Understanding this ruling and its implications is rather overwhelming. I was glad to read your discussion.
This article explains clearly what happened in our supreme court’s ruling, for those of us who have not studied constitutional law. Justice was not an issue for them.
The bottom line is that, while nationwide injunctions shoukl rarely be allowed. But this is precisely one of the cases in which it should because it involves (a) a constitutional provision whose meaning has not been subject to much, if any, ambiguity and (b) the failure to maintain such an injunction creates a practical problem where a family moves with a child from a state in which the injunction is in place to another state for some reason, perhaps because a parent obtained a new job in that other state, to one where the executive order is still in effect. In the new state of residence, is the child an American citizen? This opens up a terrible Pandora's box where Trump can continue to issue patently illegal executive orders but courts will not be in a position to properly enjoin their effect.
I've been searching for a clear, succinct explanation of the CASA ruling that will be comprehensible to non-lawyers. This is great--thank you!
I think this is a very fair critique. As a person who is also a lawyer, this is the approach I have taken when trying to explain my views on this issue to non-lawyers: there's a technical policy way of looking at the case, and a practical effects way.
In the first category, I come down on the side of not liking nationwide injunctions given the potential for abuse we saw during the Biden administration. And, I agree with the professor Brian spoke with yesterday who said basically that liberals/progressives need to shake off their rose colored glasses about court intervention and realize that doubling or tripling down on judicial review with a judiciary this overwhelmingly hostile to your interests is a bad strategy.
Also, while I haven't seen it raised anywhere, I've always thought that nationwide injunctions were a little bit incongruous with the organization of our federal courts. In theory, district courts don't set binding precedent, they just produce persuasive authority. Only appellate courts and SCOTUS have the ability to bind other decisions, and then for the appellate courts only within their circuits. So it's always been weird to me that a court that is incapable of creating binding precedent _even within its own district or circuit_ in a final decision can affect policy at a nationwide level with an injunction, even if that injunction is preliminary!
All that said, everything the author writes here about how this court in particular always seems to rig the game in favor of republican administrations is true. I don't blame anyone for viewing this cynically, when the actual best case scenario is the court is so absorbed in theory that they ignore practicalities (and every other scenario, like them approving of the EO, is markedly worse).
The Strict Scrutiny ladies have coined a term for this: doctrinal gerrymandering—i.e. carving out exceptions to general principles so as to support their ideological preferences. They were referring in particular to Mahmoud (opt out for satanic gay storybooks) and Free Speech Coalition (less scrutiny for porn restrictions).
You proved that the 6 conservative justices are political hacks: they didn’t take up the case of nationwide injunctions when the Biden administration requested it, but what a co-ink-e-dink, they do when Trump requests it. They have one set of rules for Democratic politicians and another set for Republicans.
Might the court be playing “three dimensional chess”? They know that the executive order is unconstitutional, that a class action can be easily established, that they will uphold a lower court’s ruling that the executive order is unconstitutional and meanwhile, the Trump regime becomes more unpopular and makes a fool of itself, again. This is not how I would expect or want Supreme Court justices to behave, but maybe they are thinking several steps ahead in an attempt to save the republic and rule of law. I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories but at least mine is benevolent in nature! How far-fetched is my thinking? I think the justices are 10x smarter than the Trump regime. Might they be throwing crumbs to attract the idiots into destroying themselves?
Hey Steve, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale if you’re interested. :)
while I don't disagree with this position I still can't help but feel we ask the courts to do too much as an institution. Why is there no commotion I am aware of on the legislative front. I feel as i have no political party at the moment. I am starting to think the Democrats in power as a group are largely sympathetic to the Trump agenda.
The congressional GOP is a zombie army and the Dems terrified mice. Most judges are showing backbone and it’s Roberts et al who’re pissing all over them.
"In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court could have definitively decided that President Trump’s executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship is flagrantly unconstitutional and may not be enforced. Instead, the court announced that it alone can decide such matters on a nationwide basis — and that it would not do so here."-Kate Shaw
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/01/opinion/supreme-court-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.TE8.0Jyb.BSKek1iKj2os&smid=bs-share
Most commentators I’ve heard thus far who didn’t like the ruling can hardly get past their (justifiable) anger.
I found this very enlightening and well explained. Thank you.