# What are the implications of Trump vs Casa that the SCOTUS handed down today (June 27, 2025)
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Tags:** trump
**Created:** [June 28, 2025, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213 "2025-06-28T02:47:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 14
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)
#### Post date: [June 28, 2025, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/1 "2025-06-28T02:47:12Z")
> **[Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on nationwide injunctions in...](https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/)**
>
> The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s request to partially pause rulings by three federal judges that had blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship – \[…\]
> By a vote of 6-3, the justices repudiated the concept of universal or nationwide injunctions, which prohibit the government from enforcing a law or policy anywhere in the country.
So I’m not a legal expert, but my impression is that this means that district court judges and appellate court judges cannot affect legislation or executive orders on a national level.
If that is the case, what are good and bad to come from this? I know the idea that this is all bad will come from it, but I can see a few (from a political perspective, not a balance of powers perspective) good things to come from this.
Wouldn’t this make it easier for a democratic president to change student loan terms? Wasn’t Biden’s student loan reform overturned by a district judge?
Won’t this make it harder for the GOP to try to overturn the ACA by judge shopping?
Couldn’t a democratic president pass an executive order on gun control and make it harder for judges to overturn it?
Obviously that’ll never happen. The democrats are spineless, and the SCOTUS will uphold conservative agendas as constitutional and liberal agendas as unconstitutional.
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [June 28, 2025, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/2 "2025-06-28T03:43:52Z")
I would think that one implication is that that one federal district court judge in Texas can no longer make orders restricting the use of abortion medications nation-wide.
> **[Federal judge in Texas rules 3 other states can challenge access to abortion...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna188087)**
>
> Idaho, Kansas and Missouri want the FDA to prohibit telehealth prescriptions for mifepristone and require that it be used only in the first seven weeks of pregnancy.
> [Idaho, Kansas and Missouri](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/abortion-pill-access-still-face-challenges-supreme-court-decision-rcna157053) requested late last year to pursue the case in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling finding that abortion opponents who first filed the case lacked the legal right to sue.
Why should Idaho, Kansas and Missouri be able to go to a friendly federal district judge in Texas to bring their challenges, arguing that the FDA approval is harming their anti-abortion laws?
Why shouldn’t they be required to make their case in federal courts in their own states, rather than seeking out the strongest federal judge oppnent of the abortion medication, in Texas?
---
### Author:  [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)
#### Post date: [June 28, 2025, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/3 "2025-06-28T04:45:49Z")
It means, without the slightest bit of hyperbole, that we no longer have a working judicial branch of government, remotely capable of acting as any kind of check or balance on the abuses of the executive branch.
If the president can issue a decree (without any input from the legislature) in, clear, blatant contravention of an article of the constitution, and the judicial branch is not able to say “no you can’t do that”, then we don’t have a Judicial branch of government.
Henceforth the American judiciary is purely for sending poor people to prison and signing off on divorces it no longer has any role in government.
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [June 28, 2025, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/4 "2025-06-28T05:18:35Z")
That would indeed be bad if that’s what the Supreme Court had said, but it didn’t.
The case didn’t address the substantive powers of the district courts. They have full power to review the constitutionality of federal statutes and orders. The constitutionality of birthright citizenship was not in issue in this case.
What the Supreme Court said was that district court judges have limited powers to issue nation-wide injunctions, if the district court finds that a federal law or order is invalid. They are to give remedies to the parties before them, which is how injunctions normally work, rather than one trial judge give an injunction nation-wide.
Historically, it’s not clear when nation-wide injunctions were developed. Some legal scholars say they were very rare prior to the 1960s, while others say they were not used at all for the first 175 years of the Constitution.
It appears that they first started to be used more broadly in the 1960s, and really took off during the Obama presidency.
Useful Wikipedia article:
> **[Nationwide injunction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction)**
>
> In United States law, a nationwide injunction (also called a universal injunction or national injunction) is injunctive relief in which a court binds the federal government even in its relations with nonparties.: 418 In their prototypical form, nationwide injunctions are used to restrict the federal government from enforcing a statute or regulation.: 2424
> Nationwide injunctions have come into prominent use and controversy during the Obama and Trump administrations, when they have been used by ...
---
### Author:  [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)
#### Post date: [June 29, 2025, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/5 "2025-06-29T00:37:25Z")
The decision mentioned going for a class action rather than a nationwide injunction. I’m sure the plaintiffs considered this the first time around and had a good reason not to do it. But it did seem from Alito’s concurrence [(scroll down in here)](https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/9dab66f61ae5b635/ddc1f654-full.pdf) that he’s worried a class action will be accepted by more of his colleagues. So the plaintiffs are trying it:
> **[gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.98.0.pdf](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.98.0.pdf)**
>
> 195.92 KB
I have seen a few articles, including an [op ed in the New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/opinion/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-injunction.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Sk8.cT-i.aHU3Fg2MjWyQ&smid=url-share), saying that class action is somehow better for democracy than a nationwide injunction. Maybe a op ed word limit is too short to really explain this, but it made no sense to me.
.
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [June 29, 2025, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/6 "2025-06-29T00:56:24Z")
> [@griffin1977](#):
>
> It means, without the slightest bit of hyperbole, that we no longer have a working judicial branch of government, remotely capable of acting as any kind of check or balance on the abuses of the executive branch.
No Hyperbole? 🙄
> [@Northern\_Piper](#):
>
> That would indeed be bad if that’s what the Supreme Court had said, but it didn’t.
>
> The case didn’t address the substantive powers of the district courts. They have full power to review the constitutionality of federal statutes and orders. The constitutionality of birthright citizenship was not in issue in this case.
>
> What the Supreme Court said was that district court judges have limited powers to issue nation-wide injunctions, if the district court finds that a federal law or order is invalid.
This is how I read it. But I am no lawyer.
---
### Author:  [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)
#### Post date: [June 29, 2025, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/7 "2025-06-29T02:23:29Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#):
>
> I have seen a few articles, including an [op ed in the New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/opinion/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-injunction.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Sk8.cT-i.aHU3Fg2MjWyQ&smid=url-share), saying that class action is somehow better for democracy than a nationwide injunction. Maybe a op ed word limit is too short to really explain this, but it made no sense to me.
>
> .
I think the idea is that without the universal injunction , you don’t have a single judge with this sort of power :
> Based in Amarillo, Texas, Kacsmaryk has issued several universal injunction since his 2017 nomination to the court. Some of these intended to block federal policies, such as [protections for transgender workers](https://www.kxan.com/news/business/ap-business/ap-federal-judge-strikes-down-workplace-protections-for-transgender-workers/), the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of medications, and staffing minimums at nursing homes.
It’s not like only one side can use universal injunctions.
The difference is that in class actions a judge has to certify a class- in this particular case, there might be (almost) no difference between an injunction that applies only to the members of a class in a class action lawsuit , depending on what the class is. If the class is " “All children who have been born or will be born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025, who are designated by Executive Order 14,160 to be
ineligible for birthright citizenship, and their parents.” , then there will be little difference between the injuction in a class action lawuit and a universal injuction. However, if an injunction is granted in a class action lawsuit brought by a number of states, it would possibly only apply to states that are part of the class - and presumably Texas or Florida could choose to be excluded from the class, just as you or I could exclude ourselves from a class action suit against Apple regarding iPhones. Although it’s possible that a judge might decide the class can only receive complete relief through a universal injuction, depending on the specifics. This decision did not rule them out in all circumstances.
---
### Author:  [@echoreply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/echoreply)
#### Post date: [June 29, 2025, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/8 "2025-06-29T03:29:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> No Hyperbole? 🙄
No hyperbole at all. This is a terrifying step towards a unitary executive. It is putting a real limit on the judiciary’s power to block unconstitutional and illegal laws and executive orders.
There are two outs, though. States can sue, and rulings can apply to the entire state. Classes can be certified and the rulings can apply to the entire class. Maybe class actions will become standard for cases like this, but that is not how things are done today.
It means that any given ruling **only** applies to the parties in that case. If the president sends the national guard to my city, and says they can live at my house, and I get an injunction blocking that, then they can be moved to my neighbor’s house, and they’ll have to get their own injunction.
A particular devious ramification is that the government can win by losing. They accept the loss in every case, and don’t appeal, so it never moves up to a higher court that can review the order and issue a universal injunction. This can continue house by house or state by state until there is a patchwork of places where the constitution applies and doesn’t apply.
This also will overwhelm the court system. Instead of one or a very few lawsuits against the government, there will have to be thousands.
Just because there have been some bad universal injunctions in the past doesn’t mean they are a bad tool. The bad injunctions can be appealed. If they are upheld, then maybe the injunction was the right decision (or at least the inevitable decision of a reactionary Supreme Court).
---
### Author:  [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)
#### Post date: [June 29, 2025, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/9 "2025-06-29T15:53:31Z")
> [@echoreply](#):
>
> It means that any given ruling **only** applies to the parties in that case. If the president sends the national guard to my city, and says they can live at my house, and I get an injunction blocking that, then they can be moved to my neighbor’s house, and they’ll have to get their own injunction
Yeah and the thing being fought is not some esoteric edge case at the peripheries of established Presidential powers (which [SCOTUS has no problem with as long the president in question is a Democrat.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/05/us/politics/judge-temporarily-blocks-student-debt-plan.html)) . It is “can the president overturn the 14th amendment simply by saying so”, so this ruling says the 14th amendment only applies in California, the rest of America best show suitable reverence to their God emperor before he overturns some more bits of the constitution
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [July 10, 2025, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/10 "2025-07-10T22:22:41Z")
Federal judge in New Hampshire issues nation-wide injunction against enforcing Trump’s order against birth citizenship.
Difference from previous case is this is a class action, which apparently makes a difference.
> **[Federal judge issues new nationwide block against Trump’s order seeking to...](https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/10/politics/birthright-citizenship-hearing-rhode-island)**
>
> A federal judge agreed Thursday to issue a new nationwide block against President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
> [@](#):
>
> The ruling from US District Judge Joseph Laplante is significant because the Supreme Court last month curbed the power of lower [court judges to issue nationwide injunctions](https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-decisions-06-27-25), while keeping intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of the order through class action lawsuits, which is what happened Thursday in New Hampshire.
>
> Ruling from the bench, Laplante granted a request from immigration rights attorneys to certify a nationwide class that “will be comprised only of those deprived of citizenship” and issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely blocking Trump’s Day One order from being enforced against any baby born after February 20.
>
> “The preliminary injunction is just not a close call to the court,” Laplante said during a hearing. “The deprivation of US citizenship and an abrupt change of policy that was longstanding … that’s irreparable harm.”
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [July 10, 2025, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/11 "2025-07-10T22:27:40Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#):
>
> Difference from previous case is this is a class action, which apparently makes a difference.
Interesting but, IIRC, the Supreme Court has been hostile to class actions for a long time. This seems a chance for them to kill two birds with one stone.
Not to mention the Trump admin has learned they can just ignore rulings they do not like with no consequences.
The Supreme Court is currently in recess. Is the shadow docket still working during recess? (I really do not know.)
I’m glad the federal judge did this. I am just unconvinced it will amount to anything. Which is actually very scary.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2025, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/12 "2025-07-11T01:36:05Z")
The always interesting SCOTUSblog published an article about the oddities of this ruling today.
> **[Whose irreparable harm?](https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/07/whose-irreparable-harm/)**
>
> Cases and Controversies is a recurring series by Carolyn Shapiro, primarily focusing on the effects of the Supreme Court’s rulings, opinions, and procedures on the law, on other institutions, and \[…\]
---
### Author:  [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2025, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/13 "2025-07-12T03:13:25Z")
Cite? While I find the decision stupid, Trump reprehensible, and the SCOTUS spineless, you are making some big claims here and should back them up.
---
### Author:  [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2025, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-implications-of-trump-vs-casa-that-the-scotus-handed-down-today-june-27-2025/1020213/14 "2025-07-12T16:53:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> Interesting but, IIRC, the Supreme Court has been hostile to class actions for a long time.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that class action was the only way for a ruling to apply nationwide.