U.S. Supreme Court
On April 17, the
Supreme Court agreed to hear
Trump v. CASA, consolidating it with
Trump v. New Jersey and
Trump v. Washington and setting oral arguments for May 15. Oral arguments were heard on May 15, with the solicitor general of the United States,
D. John Sauer, representing the administration; Kelsi B. Corkran, for the immigrant groups, including CASA; and
Jeremy Feigenbaum, the solicitor general of New Jersey, for the various states.
Decision On June 27, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that, “Universal injunctions likely exceed the
equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts." Justice
Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion. Barrett’s opinion did not declare universal injunctions unconstitutional, but concluded that they were an overreach based on the
Judiciary Act of 1789 and inconsistent with "historical equitable practice". Barrett wrote that "the equitable relief available in the federal courts" should be akin to what was "'traditionally accorded by
courts of equity'" at the time of the
founding of the United States, The Court granted the government a partial
stay of the injunctions blocking Executive Order 14160, but "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue." Barrett acknowledged the importance of providing "complete relief" to plaintiffs seeking an injunction, but said "complete relief" was a narrower concept than "universal relief". Barrett wrote that a pregnant mother would receive complete relief as long as her
own child was not denied citizenship. "Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render
her relief any more complete," Barrett continued. However, the Court left it to the "lower courts [to] determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate" with respect to the states suing the administration.
Concurrences Justices
Clarence Thomas,
Samuel Alito, and
Brett Kavanaugh filed concurrences. Justice
Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas's concurrence and Thomas joined Alito's concurrence. Thomas's concurrence explicitly stated that the Court's decision ended the practice of district courts issuing universal injunctions and emphasized the need to create remedies specifically tailored to the parties in a case.
Dissents Justice
Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent which was joined by Justices
Elena Kagan and
Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor argued the government had avoided requesting a complete stay of the injunctions because doing so would require them to prove Executive Order 14160 was likely constitutional. She wrote, "The gamesmanship in this request is apparent, and the Government makes no attempt to hide it." Jackson also filed a separate dissent, in which she wrote:When the Government says 'do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,' what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution—please allow this. That is some solicitation. With its ruling today, the majority largely grants the government's wish. Barrett criticized Jackson's dissent, writing that "Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary." == Subsequent legal action ==