The Supreme Court takes away a crucial tool to curb abuse of presidential power.

[link removed]

The 14th Amendment guarantees that all children born in the United States are citizens. It aimed to undo the notorious Dred Scott ruling, which held that some people born here — Black people, to be precise, free and formerly enslaved

[link removed]

— nevertheless were not citizens. As you’ll recall, just hours into his term, President Trump signed an executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship. The order was, and remains, unconstitutional

[link removed]


The Supreme Court chose this case, out of all the possible cases, to strip judges of a key power used to stop illegal actions.

Instead of ruling on the merits in Trump v. CASA, the justices chose to rule on the legality of universal injunctions, among the strongest tools that lower courts use to block flagrantly unconstitutional policies like these from taking effect while cases play out. These injunctions grant relief not only to the person who brought a lawsuit, but to all affected by the ruling. Instead of every soon-to-be parent affected by the order having to bring a lawsuit to secure citizenship for their baby, only one litigant would have to obtain a universal injunction — guaranteeing relief from an unconstitutional order for all. The six justices of the conservative supermajority decided that such rulings go beyond the power of federal courts when they’re not necessary to give the plaintiffs themselves full protection of the law.

By allowing Trump’s order to partially take effect in 30 days absent further action by the lower courts, the Court has effectively resuscitated Dred Scott, at least for some people, at least for now.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned, “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”

We at the Brennan Center are still analyzing the ruling. It’s vague at key points. In some respects, it is as great a gift to executive overreach as last summer’s ruling on presidential immunity. On the other hand, alternative avenues to obtain nationwide relief from illegal conduct remain.

Let me share several thoughts.

First, and most obviously: This is one more example of the Supreme Court enabling executive overreach at a time when checks and balances are profoundly strained.

These nationwide injunctions pose complex issues. I have warned

[link removed]

about the damage a single judge can do with a gavel and a grudge. Nationwide injunctions blocked key Biden administration initiatives, such as on student loan relief and climate change, and many of Trump’s actions in his first term. Oddly, the Supreme Court had never before ruled on the practice, despite many opportunities to do so during the Biden administration. One could have imagined a decision now that set out sharp limits. Instead, with this decision, these justices have once again gone much further than the case required.

Second, the Court purports to give litigants other ways to broadly challenge illegal actions — but these may be flimsy, even sneaky. People can file a class action lawsuit, for example. Maybe. I was a class action plaintiffs lawyer before I came to work at the Brennan Center. Those lawsuits are cumbersome, expensive, and slow, and they must overcome barriers erected by very conservative judges (and the business lobbyists who backed them for their jobs).

Then there is the question of which judges have had their power stripped. The ruling seems to apply only to lower court judges . . . but does it? For example, if the administration were to defy the Supreme Court, would the Court itself still have the legal authority to enforce its own orders to protect everyone affected? That would, after all, require a universal injunction.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, which sought to reassure: Of course the Supreme Court could still take bold action when needed. Some read that as reassuring. Others note that he is just one justice. There’s a reason this appears in a concurring opinion. Kavanaugh may not have been able to bring any of his supermajority colleagues along with him. Even if true, as Ruth Marcus explained in The New Yorker, that means the Court “sided with Donald Trump

[link removed]

over the judiciary.”

All of which brings us to the third point: The courts, alone, will not save us. In banning universal injunctions, the Supreme Court relied on an originalist interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. (Sotomayor noted that it amounted to “freezing in amber the precise remedies available.”)

Congress, in other words, wrote the law being interpreted — and could write a new law to clarify what powers federal judges hold when confronted by executive branch lawlessness.

Presidents of both parties have pushed to expand their power, though none as brazenly as Trump. And Congress has settled into torpor, failing over and over to perform its constitutional role.

After this period of institutional demolition will come a moment of reform and renewal. When it does, we should ensure that remedies make it possible to hold lawless presidents accountable, along with addressing issues such as campaign finance and voting rights.

While this Supreme Court may be frozen in 1789, we must think anew and act to ensure the protection of birthright citizenship and so many other constitutionally recognized rights. In the meantime, we must give our full support to efforts to hold this administration accountable through the courts, using any and every tool that remains.





Alarming Misuses of Federal Forces

Last week, federalized National Guard forces deployed in Los Angeles helped conduct a drug raid outside the city. “This development represents an alarming escalation of President Donald Trump’s efforts to use the military as a domestic police force,” Elizabeth Goitein writes in Just Security. She unpacks questions on the legality and broader concerns around using federal troops for routine law enforcement activities. Read more

[link removed]

States Push Show-Your-Papers Requirements

At least 27 states are considering bills that would require Americans to present a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Many of these bills resemble the SAVE Act, a federal bill that passed the House in April and has been pending in the Senate for months amid significant public blowback. A new Brennan Center roundup offers an overview of these state bills, as well as the harms caused by forcing Americans to show their papers to register to vote. Read more

[link removed]

Dire Prison Conditions

Incarcerated people are particularly vulnerable to worsening climate-related threats, including severe hurricanes and extreme heat waves. This is partly because many prisons are located in high-risk areas, have outdated infrastructure, and house populations with higher rates of mental illness and chronic health conditions, magnifying the risks posed by environmental hazards. State Court Report explores how advocates are challenging unsafe climate conditions in prisons through both federal and state lawsuits. Read more

[link removed]

Big Donors Behind the Inauguration

“President Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration didn’t just break fundraising records, it fundamentally redefined them, spotlighting the growing role of the biggest donors,” Anna Massoglia writes. Individuals and corporations contributed more than $245 million, dwarfing the fundraising scale of any previous presidential inauguration since at least 1973. Massoglia’s comprehensive new analysis details the biggest donors to Trump’s second inauguration and highlights how many of them stand to benefit from his administration’s actions. Read more

[link removed]





Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: Supreme Court Term in Review

[link removed]

Wednesday, July 9, 3–4 p.m. ET



Join us for a virtual conversation with Supreme Court experts about the Court’s decisions this term and what they mean for the rule of law. RSVP today

[link removed]

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Alicia Bannon on the Justice Department lawsuit against Maryland’s federal district court judges // AXIOS

[link removed]

Michael Li on the Supreme Court’s rehearing of a Louisiana redistricting case // NPR

[link removed]

Amos Toh on national security exceptions to federal AI guardrails // LAWFARE

[link removed]

Daniel Weiner on dark money contributions to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem when she was governor of South Dakota // PROPUBLICA

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]