The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in a case that could have major implications for the future of executive authority and the use of nationwide injunctions by federal district courts.

The consolidated case, Trump v. CASA, centers on President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrants—a policy blocked by multiple lower courts.

Three federal district judges issued nationwide injunctions that prevented the Trump administration from implementing the order, despite the executive branch’s longstanding constitutional authority over immigration matters.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

The high court is now being asked to consider whether such sweeping judicial actions overstep the proper role of the courts.

Since President Trump began his second term in January 2025, his administration has faced 17 separate nationwide injunctions through late March alone.

Imagine if overnight, the policies of some local council applied to the whole of America.

That’s what’s happening with these nationwide injunctions from power-crazed local judges.

It’s unconstitutional, it’s outrageous and it has to be stopped. pic.twitter.com/6DGqlOlFHC

— steve hilton (@SteveHiltonx) April 2, 2025

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

The administration and its supporters argue that these court orders disrupt the federal government’s ability to enforce national policy and invite judicial interference in executive decision-making.

The legal debate over nationwide injunctions has gained attention in recent years, even before this case reached the Supreme Court.

President Trump has had enough of the Supreme Court’s anti-American nonsense.

We elected Trump with a mandate to deport all 21 million illegals Joe Biden invited in, and all the rest of the illegals, even “dreamers.”

That’s what we’re going to get. pic.twitter.com/26pnFnofFO

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) May 11, 2025

Several justices have previously expressed concern about the growing use of these injunctions, which prevent government policies from being enforced not just for plaintiffs in a specific case, but across the entire country.

In a 2020 concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that such injunctions were intended to address specific injuries suffered by individual plaintiffs in specific lawsuits.

“The routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions,” Gorsuch wrote.

He also warned of the dangers of “judge shopping,” where plaintiffs seek out courts likely to deliver favorable rulings.

“There is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide,” he added.

It’s not a judges role to pass laws or set broad policies, which is effectively what nationwide injunctions do. Issuing nationwide injunctions outside the confines of a certified nationwide class action is unlawful, and the Supreme Court needs to do its job and finally end the… pic.twitter.com/ARXCBeSK1s

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) May 12, 2025

Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court’s liberal wing, has also voiced skepticism.

Speaking in 2022, she remarked, “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

The issue has drawn bipartisan concern.

In December 2024, then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, appointed by Joe Biden, submitted a brief urging the Court to reconsider and limit the use of nationwide injunctions, despite the fact that such a ruling could benefit the Trump administration.

“In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas,” Kagan said, highlighting how political strategies often dictate where lawsuits are filed.

The executive order at the center of Trump v. CASA seeks to clarify the 14th Amendment’s application to birthright citizenship in cases involving children born to individuals residing in the U.S. illegally.

Supporters of the order argue that birthright citizenship was never intended to apply in such cases and that federal courts have wrongly inserted themselves into a constitutional issue that should be left to the legislative and executive branches.

The Court’s decision in this case could significantly limit the ability of individual district judges to halt federal policies through broad injunctions affecting the entire country.

Legal experts on both sides of the political spectrum are closely watching the outcome, which could redefine the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch.

A ruling is expected by the end of the Court’s current term.

Federal Judges are not supposed to be ordering universal injunctions. The DOJ has even been trying to stop this for years

“How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everybody else other than those in front of him or her? How is that possible?”

“It shouldn’t be… pic.twitter.com/O6KJlZIWcC

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) April 1, 2025

Connect with Vetted Off-Duty Cops to Instantly Fulfill Your Security Needs