by Emmanuel S. Tipon, Esq. President Trump hailed the Supreme Court’s decision on June 27, 2025, in Trump v. Casa, No. 24A884, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), which held that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Respondents – individuals, organizations, and States – had filed three separate suits to enjoin the implementation and enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. 90 Fed. Reg. 8449.
They alleged that the Executive Orders violate the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides in Section 1 that:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
They also alleged that the Executive Order violates Section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940.
President Trump’s Executive Order identifies two circumstances in which a person born in the United States is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and is thus not recognized as an American citizen, namely,
“(1) when [a] person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the person’s birth, or (2) when [a] person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
In each case, the District Court had issued a “universal injunction” barring executive officials from applying the Executive Order to anyone, not just the plaintiffs.
In each case, the Court of Appeals denied the government’s request to stay the sweeping relief. The Government argues that the District Courts lacked equitable authority to impose “universal” relief and had filed three nearly identical emergency applications seeking partial stays to limit the preliminary injunctions to the plaintiffs in each case.
The applications do not raise – and thus the Court did not address – whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or the Nationality Act.
The issue is whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions to enjoin the enforcement of an executive order.
Decision The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Barrett, held that the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Courts lacked authority to issue universal injunctions.
The issuance of a universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power.
The court traced the history of injunctions and determined that in England there was no remedy “remotely like a national injunction”.
The Supreme Court has “consistently rebuffed requests that extend beyond the parties.”
The Supreme Court said that “Because the universal injunction lacks a historical pedigree, it falls outside the bounds of a federal court’s equitable authority under the Judiciary Act.”
ATTY. EMMANUEL S. TIPON was a Fulbright and Smith-Mundt scholar to Yale Law School where he was awarded a Master of Laws degree specializing in Constitutional Law. He graduated with a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the Philippines. He placed third in the 1955 bar examinations. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, New York, and the Philippines. He practices federal law, with emphasis on constitutional issues, immigration law, and appellate federal criminal defense. He was the Dean and a Professor of Law of the College of Law, Northwestern University, Philippines. He has written law books and legal articles for the world’s most prestigious legal publishers including Thomson West and Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Co. and writes columns for newspapers. He wrote the case notes and annotations for the entire Immigration and Nationality Act published by The Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Co. and Bancroft-Whitney Co. (now Thomson Reuters). He wrote the best-seller “Winning by Knowing Your Election Laws.” Atty. Tipon was born in Laoag City, Philippines. Cell Phone (808) 225-2645. E-Mail: attorneytipon@gmail.comfilamlaw@yahoo.com. Website: https://www.tiponimmigrationguide.comThe information provided in this article is for general information only. It is not legal advice. Publication of this information is not intended to create, and receipt by you or reading by you does not establish or constitute an attorney-client relationship.
+ There are no comments
Add yours