Description

SCOTUS spent two and a half hours hearing oral argument on Friday in the birthright-citizenship cases consolidated in Trump v. CASA—not about birthright citizenship, but about whether district courts should be issuing nationwide injunctions. Many justices, and commentators on both sides, have criticized nationwide injunctions as a judicial incursion into executive policymaking in both Republican and Democratic administrations. But will the Court use this case to impose limits?

We discuss:

• Plaintiffs in this case include 22 states. Absent a nationwide injunction, half the country would be under a different rule of birthright citizenship until the case resolves.
• CJ Roberts suggested that, in true emergencies, the Court can resolve a case fast, in as little as a month. Does this cut for or against nationwide injunctions?
• What does the Court think about using Rule 23 class actions as a substitute vehicle for nationwide relief?
• Are we heading toward a “guidance-free” 5–4 non-decision?

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Disclaimer: The views expressed by our guest, James Mixon, are his own and do not reflect the official position of the California Court of Appeal or the California Judicial Branch. AI technology and legal standards are rapidly evolving, listeners should verify current rules and consult qualified attorneys before implementing AI tools in their practice. Attorneys must independently verify all legal citations and comply with applicable rules of professional conduct.