SCOTUS LIMITS NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE, SIDESTEPS CORE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE

• Trump v. CASA, Inc.
   

OVERVIEW

In Trump v. CASA Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision limiting the power of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions. The ruling split along ideological lines, with all six Republican-appointed justices in the majority and the three Democratic-appointed justices dissenting.

 

The case arose from legal challenges to Trump’s Executive Order titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which sought to deny birthright citizenship to individuals born in the United States whose parents were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Multiple lawsuits were filed by individuals, advocacy organizations, and states arguing that the Executive Order violated the Fourteenth Amendment. In response, federal district courts issued nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of the order, not only against the plaintiffs in those specific cases but against anyone nationwide.

 

The administration appealed those injunctions, but the federal courts of appeal declined to lift them. The administration then asked the Supreme Court to intervene—not to rule on the constitutionality of the Executive Order itself, but solely to determine whether federal district courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions in such cases. The Court agreed to hear the case and consolidated all the related matters.

 

In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that federal district courts do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. The majority opinion emphasized that such sweeping relief was not part of the judiciary’s powers when the relevant statutes were enacted in 1789 and was rarely, if ever, used until the 20th century. The Court argued that nationwide injunctions are a modern judicial invention, inconsistent with the constitutional and statutory framework that limits lower courts to granting relief only to the parties before them. According to the majority, broad injunctive relief affecting non-parties should instead be pursued through class actions, despite the acknowledged difficulty of meeting the Court’s stringent standards for class certification.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

This decision has wide-reaching consequences for ongoing and future litigation involving presidential executive orders and federal agency actions. Over the past two decades, nationwide injunctions have become a critical tool for temporarily halting federal actions with sweeping impacts—particularly in areas like immigration, civil rights, education, and healthcare—while legal challenges move through the courts. That tool has now been sharply curtailed.

 

One clear example: when the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education challenged an executive order banning DEI requirements for federal contractors, a federal district court issued a nationwide injunction. That single ruling temporarily blocked the order from being enforced not just against the named plaintiffs, but across the entire federal contracting landscape—safeguarding ongoing DEI initiatives at institutions nationwide. Under Trump v. CASA, that kind of protective, system-wide relief is no longer available. Plaintiffs seeking similar protections in the future will need to bring their own cases—or attempt a class action under the Supreme Court’s increasingly stringent certification standards.

 

Now, individual plaintiffs must seek relief on a case-by-case basis, even when the challenged action could affect millions. And while the Court pointed to class actions as a procedural alternative, the practical barriers to class certification often leave impacted individuals without meaningful recourse—especially when time-sensitive enforcement is already underway.

 

Legal scholars have long noted that the rise of nationwide injunctions was, in part, a workaround for these structural challenges: a way for courts to block potentially unlawful government policies before they could inflict widespread harm. Trump v. CASA eliminates that option, forcing affected communities to either face enforcement individually or wait years for a final ruling on the merits. For civil rights, immigrant justice, and equity advocates, this represents not just a procedural shift—but a fundamental narrowing of legal protection during periods of aggressive executive policymaking.

 

BRIDGE POV

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA marks a shift in how advocates, legal practitioners, and impacted communities must approach federal executive actions going forward. By eliminating nationwide injunctions as a tool for immediate and broad relief, the Court has made it significantly harder to stop the enforcement of potentially unconstitutional policies before they cause widespread harm. This decision not only limits the courts—it raises the burden on those directly affected to fight, individually or through complex class actions, for protections that were once more readily available.

 

This shift carries implications for communities that have relied on the courts as a frontline defense against executive overreach. In recent years, nationwide injunctions have been instrumental in temporarily halting immigration bans, civil rights rollbacks, and anti-DEI directives while legal challenges proceeded. The example of the nationwide injunction that blocked enforcement of a federal DEI ban against all contractors—not just the litigants—illustrates the kind of broad protection that is no longer available.

 

Now, relief is limited to the specific plaintiffs named in a case. Individuals and institutions seeking to prevent enforcement of a federal policy must bring their own lawsuits or attempt to meet the high bar for class certification. As a result, many may face enforcement of potentially unlawful policies while litigation plays out over years.

 

This ruling reflects a broader trend toward narrowing judicial remedies and increasing procedural hurdles for those challenging federal action. It raises the stakes for litigation strategy and underscores the importance of building mechanisms outside the courtroom to protect affected communities during prolonged legal uncertainty.

 

1. Coordinate Legal Risk Assessments Across Institutions: Just as advocacy groups must pursue multi-jurisdictional litigation, companies, universities, and other private entities should coordinate legal strategies when facing sweeping federal actions (e.g., attacks on DEI policies or contractor requirements). Instead of waiting for a single legal outcome to apply broadly, institutions should be proactive in evaluating risk by jurisdiction and preparing to join or support parallel challenges. Trade associations, consortia, and legal networks can play a critical role in facilitating this.
2. Prepare to Engage in or Support Class Litigation Where Appropriate: While private companies typically don’t lead class actions, they may find themselves in a position to support or be aligned with plaintiff-side litigation (especially when policies affect employees, students, or contractors). Institutions committed to inclusive practices should consider amicus support, public statements, or behind-the-scenes legal coordination to assist litigation efforts that seek to preserve their operational values. Legal and HR teams should also understand class litigation dynamics as they assess organizational exposure.
3. Develop Internal Contingency Plans for Policy Shifts Without Courtwide Protection: In the absence of nationwide injunctions, institutions must be prepared to operate under different legal conditions and build parallel mechanisms for protection in different states or federal circuits. This means building compliance, policy, and communications strategies that account for uneven enforcement of executive actions. It also means investing in internal infrastructure—such as legal rapid response teams, employee support resources, and policy alternatives—that allow the organization to remain aligned with its values even in the face of shifting federal mandates or restrictions.

SCOTUS SIDES WITH PARENTS IN CHALLENGE TO LGBTQ+ INCLUSIVE CURRICULUM

• Mahmoud v. Taylor 

 

OVERVIEW

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of parents who challenged a public elementary school’s LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum, holding that their rights as parents were violated when they were not allowed to opt their children out of those lessons. The ruling was 6–3, with the Court’s six Republican-appointed justices forming the majority and the three Democratic-appointed justices dissenting.

 

The case arose after a public school district introduced new reading materials and teacher guides designed to promote inclusion and respect for LGBTQ+ individuals and families. The curriculum included stories featuring same-sex parents, discussions of gender identity, and guidance for teachers on how to foster inclusive classroom dialogue. Several parents objected on religious grounds, arguing that the materials conflicted with their beliefs and interfered with their right to guide their children’s moral and religious development.

 

When the school district denied the parents’ request to opt their children out of these lessons, the parents filed suit, claiming violations of their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and parental authority over the upbringing of their children. The district defended its policy by arguing that the curriculum was educational—not doctrinal—and aimed at promoting tolerance and respect for diversity.

 

The Supreme Court disagreed. The majority held that the curriculum’s content and delivery crossed a constitutional line by endorsing messages that conflicted with the parents’ religious views. The Court concluded that denying opt-out rights in this context burdened the parents’ right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, and that the school’s interest in promoting inclusion did not override that constitutional protection.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor continues a clear judicial trend: prioritizing religious freedom and parental authority over protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. In this case, the Court held that public schools must allow parents to opt their children out of curricula that conflict with their religious beliefs—specifically, instruction affirming LGBTQ+ identities and families. As in previous cases, the Court concluded that the state’s interest in promoting inclusion did not override the constitutional rights asserted by the objecting parties.

 

This decision echoes and builds upon a growing line of cases where the Court has sided with religious or moral objections at the expense of LGBTQ+ inclusion. In 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023) and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the Court ruled that business owners could deny services to same-sex couples if doing so conflicted with their religious beliefs. In each case, the Court framed LGBTQ+ inclusion not as a guaranteed right, but as something that must give way when it conflicts with other constitutional claims.

 

That framing has serious implications. When viewed alongside United States v. Skrmetti— upholding a state’s ability to restrict access to gender-affirming care for minors—a broader pattern emerges: the Court is not only declining to expand LGBTQ+ protections, but actively narrowing the legal frameworks through which those protections have historically been secured.

 

Further signals come from Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), where the Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In his concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly called for the Court to reconsider other precedents based on similar constitutional reasoning, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized the right to same-sex marriage.

 

At the same time, the Court has increasingly applied civil rights protections to majority groups. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (covered in Issues 2 and 15), the Court ruled that reverse discrimination claims brought by white, male, or cisgender plaintiffs must be evaluated using the same standards applied to historically marginalized groups. Similarly, in SFFA v. Harvard (2023), the Court invalidated race-conscious admissions policies in higher education, sharply limiting institutional tools to address structural inequality.

 

Taken together, these decisions reflect a broader judicial philosophy that places constraints on civil rights protections for minority communities while broadening access to those protections for majority constituencies. The result is a legal landscape in which LGBTQ+ rights—and related equity efforts—are increasingly vulnerable to challenge, especially when framed in opposition to religious liberty, parental rights, or equal protection claims by members of dominant groups.

 

As more cases involving transgender rights and gender-affirming care move toward the Court, this trajectory suggests limited judicial appetite for expanding protections in new domains. For institutions navigating this environment, legal compliance alone may not be sufficient. Strategic planning will require clear values, strong internal policies, and a proactive stance on inclusion—especially as the courts narrow what the law guarantees.

 

BRIDGE POV

While this ruling marks a legal shift with far-reaching implications, it does not change what leadership requires. The Court may have upheld the state’s authority to restrict access to care for transgender minors, but it did not erase the responsibility of employers to safeguard dignity, equity, and wellbeing in the workplace and beyond.

 

In practical terms, this decision empowers states to enact—and defend—laws that limit or stigmatize care for transgender youth. But, in reputational terms, it puts greater weight on how private-sector institutions choose to respond. Silence can signal complicity. So can indifference. And for organizations that serve or employ LGBTQ+ individuals and their families, neutrality is not insulation—it’s exposure.

 

Companies cannot rely on legal minimums to define leadership. Healthcare benefits, inclusive policy design, and culture-building are all areas where the private sector continues to lead. But this moment calls for more than continuation. It calls for a reassertion of values: that inclusion is not conditional, that support for transgender employees and their families is not negotiable, and that care—especially for youth—is not political.

 

1. Reevaluate Healthcare Coverage in All Jurisdictions: Ensure that benefits—including gender-affirming care for dependents—remain consistent, compliant, and protected across state lines. This may include expanding access through national providers, reimbursing for out-of-state care, or offering support through third-party advocacy programs. Policy should reflect values, not just regulations.
2. Communicate Support Proactively, Not Reactively: Internal communications matter. Employers should clearly reaffirm their commitment to LGBTQ+ employees and families, including how benefits, protections, and support will remain in place regardless of changing state laws. Waiting until employees ask—or face harm—is too late.
3. Strengthen Policy Infrastructure: Review and reinforce nondiscrimination, medical leave, and travel-support policies. Align these with federal standards, but also go beyond them to build consistency across business units and geographies. The goal is to ensure that state-level restrictions do not fracture internal protections or create risk exposure for employees or the company.