This article originally appeared as a Gavel to Gavel guest column in the Journal Record on August 7, 2025.
By: Kelly L. Offutt
Kelly L. Offutt
On June 27, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. Casa, Inc., addressing the power of federal courts to issue “universal” injunctions—orders that bar the government from enforcing a law or policy against anyone, not just those who are parties to a relevant matter before a court. The decision arose from challenges to President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, which seeks to restrict recognition of citizenship for certain children born in the United States, known as “birthright citizenship.” Respondents (the Plaintiffs below) from three separate cases, comprised of individuals, organizations, and States, argued in the trial courts that the Executive Order violated the Fourteenth Amendment‘s Citizenship Clause and federal law.
Background and lower court rulings
Three district courts found the Executive Order is likely unlawful and therefore issued universal preliminary injunctions, blocking its enforcement nationwide. The government appealed, arguing that such broad relief exceeded the courts’ equitable authority. The courts of appeal declined to narrow the injunctions, prompting the government to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
The decision
The Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of the Executive Order itself, nor did it provide any hints as to how it might rule on the merits. Instead, the 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, focused on whether federal courts have the authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court held that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.” The Court emphasized that, historically, courts of equity provided remedies only to the parties before them, not to the public at large. The Court traced the history of equitable remedies, finding no founding-era precedent for universal injunctions.
The decision leaves open the possibility of class wide relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 but makes clear that universal injunctions are not permitted except in a narrow class of cases. The Court held that universal injunctions exceed the power of the judiciary unless necessary to provide the formal plaintiff with complete relief.
Conclusion
Trump v. Casa, Inc. marks a shift in the law of remedies, curtailing the use of universal injunctions and reinforcing the principle that federal courts may only grant relief to the parties before them. What the long-anticipated decision does not do, however, is address the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, that question, it seems, will likely appear before the Court at a later date.
About the author:
Kelly L. Offutt is an experienced litigation attorney who represents individuals and public and private companies in a wide range of complex litigation matters.
CONTACT: kloffutt@phillipsmurrah.com | 405.552.2480
Visit Phillips Murrah on social media:
