Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision may allow President Trump’s Executive Order limiting birthright citizenship to take effect. The Court restricts federal courts from issuing preliminary injunctions that protect others who may be similarly situated as the plaintiffs unless they are a party of the case. This ban on so-called “nationwide” preliminary injunctions will certainly require immediate shifts in constitutional law and litigation.
While the decision may appear to be a short-term procedural win for the administration, this is not a partisan issue; it is a constitutional one. Although full appreciation of the impact will take years, the ruling has surely invited an avalanche of litigation against government actors accused of unconstitutional actions.
By limiting preliminary injunctions to only the parties before the court, the ruling effectively guts a tool typically used to check alleged government overreach. Millions of Americans may now be forced to file individual suits or rely upon lengthy class certification processes which typically takes months or even years.
Our firm has seen firsthand how government power can be weaponized to silence dissent. In our successful representation of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) against the Cuomo Administration’s financial blacklisting campaign, we confronted—and defeated—a targeted effort to punish disfavored speech. That victory, a unanimous 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court (National Rifle Association v. Vullo), underscores the critical role of the courts in safeguarding individual rights.
The Court’s ruling today confirms how fragile those protections can be, and how urgently they must be defended. Make no mistake: this decision is a call to action.
With district courts now barred from providing “nationwide protection,” mass litigation seems likely. Lawyers and advocacy groups will mobilize—through representational lawsuits, coordinated individual suits, and expedited procedural strategies, federal dockets will no be quite crowded.