Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Just the Facts: Supreme Court Ruling in Trump v. CASA Narrows Judicial Power, Reshapes Legal Landscape

Just the Facts: Supreme Court Ruling in Trump v. CASA Narrows Judicial Power, Reshapes Legal Landscape
How reforming felony murder laws can reduce juvenile justice harms
Getty Images

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches—particularly in how federal courts can respond to presidential actions.


In a 6–3 ruling along ideological lines, the Court held that federal district courts lack the authority to issue universal (or nationwide) injunctions—orders that block a federal policy or executive action from being enforced against anyone beyond the plaintiffs in a given case. Instead, the Court concluded that lower courts may only grant relief sufficient to provide “complete relief” to the parties before them.

What the Ruling Means in Practice

  • Individuals or organizations seeking to challenge a presidential order must now sue individually or as part of a certified class action.
  • Courts can no longer issue sweeping injunctions that halt a federal policy nationwide while litigation proceeds.

Implications for Presidential Power

The decision effectively narrows one of the judiciary’s most powerful tools for checking executive authority. As a result:

  • Presidents may implement contested policies more freely, even while those policies are under legal challenge.
  • Legal opposition will likely become more fragmented and slower, requiring coordinated lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions.
  • The precedent applies to future administrations as well, regardless of party, potentially expanding the scope of executive action without immediate nationwide judicial constraint.

Impact on Birthright Citizenship

The Court did not address the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. That issue remains unresolved and will continue to be litigated in lower courts.

Broader Constitutional Questions

The ruling has sparked debate over the judiciary’s role as a co-equal branch of government. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision could allow presidents to enforce potentially unconstitutional policies while legal challenges are still pending, thereby weakening the courts’ ability to provide timely relief.

Context: A Long Arc of Expanding Executive Power

The CASA decision fits within a broader historical trend of increasing presidential authority. However, it stands out as a judicially sanctioned limitation on the courts themselves—altering the structural balance of power.

Era

Key Developments

Impact

Jacksonian Era (1820s–40s)

Asserted strong executive leadership, vetoed the national bank

Sparked fears of “King Andrew I” authoritarianism

Lincoln (1860s)

Suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War

Set the precedent for emergency powers

FDR (1930s–40s)

New Deal programs via executive orders

Expanded federal and executive authority dramatically

Post-WWII Presidents

Truman entered the Korean War without Congress; Eisenhower used CIA covertly

Cemented the president as a foreign policy leader

Post-9/11 Era

Bush expanded surveillance and war powers

The Patriot Act and unitary executive theory gained traction

Trump Era

Frequent use of executive orders, challenged norms

Pushed boundaries on immigration and emergency declarations

Unlike previous expansions that increased executive tools, the CASA ruling limits the judiciary’s ability to respond—marking a structural shift in the separation of powers.

Implications for Future Litigation Strategies

The decision is prompting a strategic recalibration among civil rights groups, democracy reform advocates, and public interest litigators. Key shifts include:

  • A move away from reliance on single-district court rulings to block federal policies nationwide.
  • Increased use of class action lawsuits to achieve broader relief, though these efforts are often more complex and time-consuming.
  • Greater emphasis on coordinated, multi-jurisdictional legal strategies to build momentum across the courts.

In response, coalitions such as Democracy 2025 are developing legal infrastructure to meet this challenge, including rapid-response teams and pooled legal resources.

Legal scholars and institutions are also weighing in. Just Security, a nonpartisan law and policy forum, has published a detailed analysis outlining alternative legal pathways to achieve broader relief in the post-CASA landscape.

Strategic Takeaway

While the CASA ruling does not expand executive power directly, it reshapes the legal terrain on which executive authority is contested. For those working to uphold democratic accountability, the decision underscores the need for:

  • Distributed legal strategies across jurisdictions
  • Narrative framing that connects legal challenges to democratic principles
  • Collaborative infrastructure that integrates litigation, civic engagement, and public education

As the legal and civic sectors adapt, the ruling may serve as a catalyst for new forms of democratic resilience—rooted not only in the courts but in the broader ecosystem of public accountability.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

Manhunt in Minnesota Following “Politically Motivated” Shootings

A vehicle belonging to Vance Boelter is towed from the alley behind his home on June 14, 2025 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Boelter is a suspect in the shooting of two Democratic-Farmer-Labor lawmakers.

(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Manhunt in Minnesota Following “Politically Motivated” Shootings

A massive search is underway for Vance Boelter, accused of fatally shooting Democratic lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband and injuring State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife in what authorities are calling “politically motivated” shootings.

The FBI is offering a $50,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest of Boelter, whom authorities say was impersonating a police officer at the time of the shooting. Investigators also say the suspect had a vehicle with emergency lights and sirens. Inside the vehicle, they found a manifesto with lawmakers' names on it, as well as papers with No Kings written on them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

A pump jack seen in a southeast New Mexico oilfield.

Getty Images, Daniel A. Leifheit

Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now.

In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ed Martin’s Plan to Shame Trump's Enemies Threatens the Rule of Law

The Department of Justice logo is displayed.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Ed Martin’s Plan to Shame Trump's Enemies Threatens the Rule of Law

For a long time, scholars, commentators, and officials have debated the efficacy of shame as a form of punishment. Opinion has been divided over the efficacy and appropriateness of using it as a response to a criminal conviction.

But nowhere did anyone ever suggest that shaming someone would be an acceptable reason to prosecute them. Until now.

Keep ReadingShow less
After Decades of Taking Others’ Freedom, Prosecutors Cry Foul Over Fixing Their Mistakes

A small Lady Justice statue.

Getty Images, MarianVejcik

After Decades of Taking Others’ Freedom, Prosecutors Cry Foul Over Fixing Their Mistakes

Louisiana District Attorneys Association (LDAA), a special interest lobbying group, stands in the way of justice in Louisiana. On May 21, the LDAA successfully blocked a legislative pathway for hundreds of people to receive fair constitutional trials. Louisiana is the only state in the United States of America where people are serving sentences in prison, some for life, where a jury did not agree on whether they were guilty.

For nearly 1,000 people in Louisiana prisons, a jury could have found them guilty but instead returned a verdict that would be called a “hung jury” if the case had been tried in Alabama, Texas, New York, California, Mississippi, and other states.

Keep ReadingShow less