lawrota.com

From Universal Injunctions to Unforgettable Justice: SCOTUS Takes on Trump v. CASA Amid Reflections on Justice David Souter

In a term packed with high-stakes constitutional questions, Trump v. CASA emerged as a defining moment—not only for what it said about executive power and nationwide injunctions but also for the unique blend of legacy and law that marked the day’s proceedings.

As arguments opened on a case pulled from the Supreme Court’s so-called “shadow docket,” Chief Justice John Roberts took a few solemn moments to honor the late Justice David Souter, whose quiet humility and dedication to public service made him a judicial icon. What followed was not only a deep dive into the scope of presidential authority but also a reminder of the human stories—past and present—that shape our legal system.

1. A Rare Spotlight on the Emergency Docket

Trump v. CASA, along with its consolidated cases, centers on two explosive issues: the legality of nationwide injunctions and the constitutional challenge to an executive order targeting birthright citizenship.

Ordinarily, cases of this nature would simmer quietly on the Court’s emergency docket—decided without full briefing or oral argument. But this one was different. The stakes were too high, and the legal implications too far-reaching. So, the Court granted full arguments, giving the public, press, and legal scholars a rare “peek at the merits” of these controversial questions.

2. A Morning of Tributes and Tensions

Before the arguments began, Chief Justice Roberts paused to offer a tribute to Justice David Souter, who passed away at age 85. Souter, a New Hampshire native, served 19 years on the Court and was remembered fondly for his intellect, decency, and resistance to Washington’s culture of power-chasing.

Roberts spoke of Souter’s origins, noting how classmates once named him “Most Likely to Succeed,” “Most Sophisticated,” and “Most Literary.” He honored the Justice’s brief stint on the 1st Circuit before his 1990 nomination by President George H.W. Bush and lauded his dedication to service over spectacle.

Souter’s post-retirement departure—packing up his Volkswagen and returning to New Hampshire—symbolized his belief that Washington was a “tour of duty, not a destination.” The courtroom stood still in collective remembrance, even as pressing constitutional issues loomed.

3. Birthright Citizenship and the Scope of Power

After the tribute, attention quickly turned to the constitutional controversy surrounding the Trump administration’s attempt to challenge the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The central question: Can the president, through executive order, alter or restrict birthright citizenship?

This inquiry raised even more fundamental issues: How far can lower courts go when issuing nationwide injunctions? Are such sweeping remedies an overreach—or a necessary tool to curb executive overstep?

Solicitor General John Sauer, in just his second appearance before the Court, appeared visibly more animated than in his first. His gesturing and stepping back from the lectern gave a glimpse of the pressure and complexity inherent in the moment. Early in the argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor grilled him, seemingly taking cues from her sharp interactions with former Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Chief Justice Roberts had to step in more than once, asserting, “Can I hear the rest of his answer?” and eventually, more firmly, “Could I, counsel?”

This subtle battle of judicial personalities underscored the high tension in the room—and the ideological divisions that continue to shape Court dynamics.

4. What’s at Stake? Injunctions and Judicial Power

Although framed around birthright citizenship, much of the argument focused on the broader legal tool of universal (or nationwide) injunctions. Are these sweeping remedies appropriate, or do they encourage forum shopping and judicial overreach?

Historically rare, universal injunctions have surged in recent years, often blocking controversial executive actions across all 50 states. Critics argue they undermine democratic debate and judicial modesty. Supporters say they are often the only effective way to check systemic violations of rights—especially on immigration or civil liberties.

The justices, particularly Roberts and Kavanaugh, seemed interested in defining the scope and legitimacy of these injunctions without necessarily resolving the constitutional question on birthright citizenship—though multiple justices acknowledged that courts often “peek at the merits” before issuing relief.

5. Legal Theater and Noteworthy Attendees

The courtroom was packed. Among the high-profile attendees were Ashley Kavanaugh, wife of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Laura Ingraham, Fox News commentator and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas. The alcoves were filled with current law clerks, visibly eager to witness a case that could set precedent on two major legal fronts.

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, nearing retirement, was also in attendance—marking the final stretch of an extraordinary career.

6. A Day of Meaning, on and off the Record

Outside the formal transcripts and opinion summaries, there was a palpable sense of legacy in the air. From the quiet dignity of Souter’s memorial to the fiery constitutional questions being debated inside, the day served as a reminder that the Court is not just a forum for legal reasoning—it is a place of human memory, principle, and purpose.

Justice Souter’s influence lingered beyond the eulogy. His legacy of humility, intellectual rigor, and principled restraint provided an unspoken contrast to the charged constitutional debate unfolding inside the chamber.

#TrumpvCASA #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #JusticeSouter #BirthrightCitizenship #UniversalInjunctions #LegalNews #ConstitutionalLaw #JudicialEthics #LawStudents #LegalLegacy

Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/a-peek-at-the-merits/