(A)Political - June 28th

Good morning everyone,

World War III crisis averted. Can’t wait to share why!

Trump wins a big legal victory in the birthright citizenship issue in Trump V CASA. Lower courts now have 30 days to narrow their injunctions in the birth-right citizenship lawsuits, and their rulings will shape whether the Supreme Court revisits the merits of the policy in its 2025-26 term. China’s expedited export-permit window closes in mid-July; if mineral shipments meet agreed volumes, Washington will roll back selected countermeasures, but any shortfall could reignite tariffs before broader talks resume. The fragile Israel-Iran cease-fire faces its first test as IAEA inspectors assess damage to Iranian sites and U.S.-brokered nuclear talks begin, with renewed strikes likely if enrichment restarts.

• Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Trump In Birthright Citizenship Case

• Trump Secures Trade Deal With China, More Deals Coming

• Trump Takes Victory Lap Over Iran-Israel Conflict & Resolution

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Trump In Birthright Citizenship Case

_{By: Atlas}

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that trims the power of federal trial judges to block executive actions for the entire country, granting President Donald Trump a significant—though incomplete—victory in his fight over universal injunctions and his attempt to limit birth-right citizenship. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

What the Court Actually Decided

The consolidated cases—Trump v. CASA, Inc. and companion challenges brought by Washington and New Jersey—centered on three district-court injunctions that barred enforcement of Executive Order 14160, Trump’s Day-One directive ending automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents without legal status or permanent residency. Lower-court judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington had issued nationwide orders blocking the policy before it could take effect.

Rather than decide whether the executive order itself violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, the Supreme Court focused on a narrower, procedural question: whether the federal courts possess equitable authority—rooted in the Judiciary Act of 1789—to issue relief on behalf of everyone, including non-parties. The majority concluded that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,” citing the absence of any analogous remedy in historic English chancery or early American practice.

Accordingly, the Court stayed each injunction “only to the extent that [it is] broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing.” Enforcement of the order remains paused for 30 days, and the three district courts must redraw their decrees so they apply solely to the named plaintiffs, or certify a class under Rule 23 if broader protection is warranted.

The Competing Opinions

Justice Barrett’s opinion emphasizes separation-of-powers concerns, arguing that federal courts cannot exceed the remedial tools that existed when Congress first granted equity jurisdiction. She rejected arguments that expansive injunctions are necessary to check the executive branch, writing that “the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, called the ruling “an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.” She warned that limiting injunctions to the specific plaintiffs in a case could allow the executive to continue enforcing unlawful policies against millions of similarly situated people until each finds counsel and files suit. Justice Jackson penned a separate dissent contending the majority’s view will “disproportionately impact the poor, the uneducated, and the unpopular” by forcing each injured person to litigate individually.

Immediate Political Reactions

President Trump celebrated the decision as a “GIANT WIN” on his Truth Social platform and signaled he would “promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly blocked” by universal injunctions. Attorney General Pam Bondi echoed that message, calling the ruling “a monumental victory for the Constitution” and noting that the administration will press ahead with defending EO 14160 when the merits are argued this fall.

Immigrant-rights organizations had the opposite response. CASA, the lead plaintiff, said the decision “undermines the fundamental promise of the Constitution—that every child born on U.S. soil is equal under the law”—and vowed to keep fighting until the order is permanently struck down. Some state attorneys general who sued over the policy indicated they will seek class-wide relief at the district-court level, citing Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence that class certification remains a viable path.

Practical Impact of the Ruling

Although the Supreme Court’s holding does not resolve the constitutionality of the birth-right citizenship order, it has sweeping procedural implications:

• Curbing Judicial Reach: Trial judges may still enjoin enforcement of a law or order, but only as to the parties before them, unless they follow the narrower route of certifying a class. That curtails the ability of a single district court to freeze national policy overnight.

• Shift in Litigation Strategy: Plaintiffs seeking nationwide relief will now need to pursue class actions or coordinate multiple suits. Government lawyers, for their part, can expect to argue more frequently that injunctions should be limited in geographic and personal scope.

• Potential Patchwork of Rulings: Unless and until the Supreme Court decides the merits, different district courts could reach different conclusions about EO 14160, leading to uneven enforcement across the country—a possibility Barrett acknowledged when she cited the traditional “party-specific” nature of equitable remedies.

Next Steps for Birth-Right Citizenship

The Court’s order keeps EO 14160 on hold for at least 30 days while lower courts recalibrate their injunctions. Because the justices expressly declined to address whether the order violates the Citizenship Clause or §201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, the substance of Trump’s directive will return to trial courts for a fuller record and likely back to the Supreme Court during the October 2025 Term. Attorney General Bondi confirmed the administration will seek expedited merits review, arguing that the Constitution’s guarantee was intended for the children of formerly enslaved persons, not for what Trump has called “scamming” of the immigration system.

A Broader Debate Over Universal Injunctions

Universal injunctions have proliferated over the past decade, with scholars tallying more than 25 such orders against Trump-era policies in the first 100 days of his second term alone. Supporters view them as essential to prevent irreparable harm from nationwide policies; critics describe them as “lawless” judicial overreach that invites strategic forum shopping and thwarts the orderly development of precedent. By insisting on party-specific relief unless strict procedural safeguards are met, Trump v. CASA signals a clear preference for more incremental, class-based litigation.

Bottom Line

Friday’s decision gives President Trump a procedural win and curtails a remedy that had become a favored tool for advocates challenging federal policies. Yet it leaves the battle over birth-right citizenship unresolved and ushers in a new era of litigation in which class actions, rather than universal injunctions, will likely become the principal battleground for nationwide challenges to presidential orders.

Subscribe to (A)Political to read the rest.