Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Restrict Nationwide Injunctions, Starting With Birthright Citizenship

This overview is excerpted from , Manatt’s subscription service that provides in-depth insights and analysis focused on the legal, policy and market developments. For more information on how to subscribe and to activate a complimentary one week trial to Manatt on Health, please reach out to .

On March 13, the Trump Administration the Supreme Court to restrict the scope of three nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking the enforcement of an Executive Order (EO) concerning birthright citizenship and, in doing so, has presented the Court with an opportunity to rule on the permissibility of nationwide preliminary injunctions.

The “Day One” EO, , sought to deny citizenship to babies born in the United States without at least one parent who is a citizen, permanent resident, or (for mothers only) holder of non-temporary immigration status, contrary to current law and long-settled interpretations of the 14th Amendment.

Within weeks, three district courts issued preliminary injunctions prohibiting the enforcement of the EO nationwide. The Trump Administration appealed these orders and asked to pause the injunctions—and allow the EO to take effect—while the appeal proceeded. That request was denied by all three courts of appeals.

The administration is now asking the Supreme Court to restrict the scope of those injunctions so they apply only to certain parties participating in the lawsuits, rather than applying nationwide—unless and until the Supreme Court itself reviews the appeal on the merits. Moreover, the Administration seeks to bar states from seeking statewide injunctions on behalf of their residents.

If adopted by the Supreme Court, the Administration’s arguments would have significant implications for legal challenges to federal actions, well beyond the birthright citizenship EO. Courts commonly issue nationwide injunctions upon identifying legal defects in a generally applicable federal policy, such as a statute, regulation, or guidance document—as many courts have done in response to executive action under the first and second Trump Administrations.

Reducing the availability of nationwide injunctions would likely result in more lawsuits being filed by more organizations and (if permitted) states, all seeking an order that would apply to them and their constituents. Unless all courts rule the same way, the resulting orders would create a patchwork quilt where federal policies apply to some individuals, organizations, or states, but not others, with uniform decisions only in the rare cases that the Supreme Court decides.

Looking ahead, the Court has set an April 4 deadline for the plaintiffs to respond to the Administration’s request.

The Trump Administration submitted three near-identical applications to the Supreme Court in ; ; and .

The three district courts are located in in , , and . Following these nationwide preliminary injunctions, proceedings in several other lawsuits were paused. (For example, see and .)

In addition, the Administration argues that the injunctions impermissibly restrict the executive branch’s internal operations by prohibiting ongoing policy development, such as drafting and releasing guidance describing how the Administration intends to implement the EO if the injunction is lifted.

The states challenging the birthright citizenship EO include: AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MN, NV, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OR, RI, VT, WA, and WI.

For more information on how to subscribe and to activate a complimentary one week trial to , please reach out to .