Nationwide Injunction Ruling is Troubling, but Limited

LAS VEGAS — The U.S. Supreme Court today undercut the ability for lower courts to issue “universal injunctions.” The court’s opinion did not address the underlying merits of the Trump Administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship by way of executive order.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada says that under today’s ruling, Nevada and other states are likely to see more class action lawsuits after the court’s conservative majority found that universal injunctions likely exceed the authority that Congress has given to federal courts, and instead suggested that class action cases may be more appropriate.

The nonpartisan nonprofit warns that such an increase in class action cases is likely to logjam courts because class actions have intricate procedural requirements. Echoing Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinion, the ACLU of Nevada points out, “Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.” The ruling does not bar universal injunctions entirely.

The case surrounds the ability of courts to issue universal injunctions. In this instance, an injunction had blocked Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order to strip citizenship from children born in the U.S. to people who are immigrants — a direct assault on the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship.

Federal appeals courts blocked the order and issued nationwide injunctions to prevent irreparable harm, citing its clear conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Twenty-two states, including Nevada, the ACLU, and other organizations, have brought challenges to the Trump Administration’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, and those challenges will almost certainly continue and now expand further.

ACLU of Nevada executive director Athar Haseebullah said:

“The court’s decision to undercut universal injunctions is likely to yield even more turmoil nationwide, with an increased number of class action lawsuits and inconsistent results for extended time periods between jurisdictions on a variety of issues. Of note, today’s decision didn’t end birthright citizenship or touch on the merits of the case, but undercutting federally confirmed judges’ ability to interpret the law in this fashion poses serious risks during an administration that has already shown it is committed to chaos. While the administration will almost certainly view that as a procedural win in its attempt to undercut civil liberties, it may create huge challenges in the future on a variety of issues. As Justice Sotomayor said, 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit.'”