The Supreme Court’s Ruling and Its Implications for Trump’s Policies
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on June 27, which limited the use of nationwide injunctions to block federal policies, was hailed by President Donald Trump as a significant win. However, the ruling may not be as straightforward as it appears.
The court’s decision curtailed the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions that can prevent the government from enforcing a policy across the entire country. While the Trump administration expressed its intention to challenge such injunctions, the ruling included exceptions that allow federal judges to continue issuing broad rulings against parts of the president’s agenda.
In the time since the decision, lower-court judges have already taken action. They have blocked Trump’s asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, prevented his administration from ending temporary deportation protections for Haitian migrants, and forced the government to restore health websites that were deemed to contradict Trump’s efforts to limit “gender ideology.”
One of the most significant tests of the Supreme Court’s ruling will come on Thursday when a federal judge in New Hampshire considers whether to stop Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship from taking effect nationwide on July 27. This executive order was central to the Supreme Court’s ruling, although the court did not address the legality of the policy itself. Instead, it held that judges likely lack the authority to issue universal injunctions and ordered three judges to reconsider their rulings blocking the policy.
The executive order, issued on Trump’s first day back in office in January, directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Class Action Lawsuits and Legal Challenges
The plaintiffs in the New Hampshire birthright citizenship case are looking to take advantage of one of the major exceptions outlined in the Supreme Court’s ruling. They argue that judges can still block Trump policies on a nationwide basis in class action lawsuits.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others shortly after the Supreme Court ruled, seeks class action status on behalf of babies who would be affected by Trump’s executive order and their parents. The plaintiffs are asking U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, who previously issued a more narrow injunction blocking Trump’s order, to expand the scope this time by allowing the plaintiffs to sue as a nationwide class and issuing an order blocking the ban from being enforced against members of the class.
At least one other judge has already followed this approach. On July 2, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington determined that Trump’s denial of asylum to migrants on the southern border exceeded the president’s authority. He then certified a class covering all individuals subject to the presidential proclamation on asylum and issued an injunction to protect the class—effectively a nationwide injunction.
The administration appealed the ruling, with White House aide Stephen Miller calling it a judge’s attempt to “circumvent” the Supreme Court’s ruling by recognizing “a protected global ‘class’ entitled to admission into the United States.”
Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the ACLU, noted that there could be “a lot more class actions” following the ruling. Class actions must adhere to Rule 23, which requires plaintiffs to meet several elements, including proving that the proposed class members suffered the same injury.
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito warned lower courts against certifying nationwide classes without “scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23.” The process of certifying a class can often take months. A senior White House official stated that the administration will closely monitor class certification decisions and plans to aggressively challenge them to prevent abuse of the process.
Other Legal Tools and Ongoing Challenges
Judges have also used other legal tools to block Trump administration policies on a nationwide basis. These include finding that the government failed to comply with administrative law, another exception in the Supreme Court’s ban on injunctions.
This approach was used in two separate rulings last week, which blocked the Trump administration from ending a program that allows a half million Haitians to stay and work temporarily in the United States. It also required the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to restore government websites that had been removed early in Trump’s tenure following an executive order.
Separately, on July 2, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy during a hearing in Boston raised the possibility of continuing to block the U.S. Department of Defense from sharply cutting federal research funding provided to universities throughout the country.
“There’s a strong argument that CASA doesn’t apply at all,” Murphy said.
