Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Administrative Procedure Act Option for Challenging the Birthright Citizenship and Other Illegal Executive Actions
https://www.justsecurity.org/115917/trump-casa-administrative-procedure-universal-injunctions/As Justice Jackson’s and Sotomayor’s dissents vividly chronicled, Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court’s 2025 Term-ending decision that limited nationwide or “universal” injunctions, gives ample ground for despair. As others have documented, it unjustifiably amplifies presidential power and diminishes the judiciary. But the decision also offers a ray of hope: the availability of review and vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of agency action arising out of President Trump’s executive order.
Justice Kavanaugh Invites APA Review
In a 6-3 decision, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, ruled that under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts lack the authority to issue universal injunctions unless necessary to grant “complete relief to the plaintiffs before the court.” Accordingly, the Court granted a partial stay of three nationwide preliminary injunctions prohibiting enforcement of President Trump’s egregiously unconstitutional Executive Order No. 14160, which purports to abrogate birthright citizenship. At first blush, that decision would appear to exempt from protection individuals and entities who are subject to the lawless federal action if they are not plaintiffs in the relevant litigation.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent argues that
In response, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence asserts that claim is overbroad and argues that plaintiffs broadly affected by unconstitutional executive action may
Justice Kavanaugh Invites APA Review
In a 6-3 decision, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, ruled that under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts lack the authority to issue universal injunctions unless necessary to grant “complete relief to the plaintiffs before the court.” Accordingly, the Court granted a partial stay of three nationwide preliminary injunctions prohibiting enforcement of President Trump’s egregiously unconstitutional Executive Order No. 14160, which purports to abrogate birthright citizenship. At first blush, that decision would appear to exempt from protection individuals and entities who are subject to the lawless federal action if they are not plaintiffs in the relevant litigation.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent argues that
The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit.
In response, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence asserts that claim is overbroad and argues that plaintiffs broadly affected by unconstitutional executive action may
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) . . . ask a court to award preliminary classwide relief that may, for example, be statewide, regionwide, or even nationwide.
What happens after the Supreme Court’s CASA decision? Koh, Raul & Halbhuber write that the Administrative Procedure Act offers a strong alternative to grant nationwide relief from unlawful executive action.
— Just Security (@justsecurity.org) 2025-06-30T22:45:43.961Z
www.justsecurity.org/115917/trump...