NAHB Weighs in on Supreme Court Case in Support of Nationwide Injunctions

This post has been updated.

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 15 heard oral arguments in Trump v. CASA, Inc. et al. — what has been called the “birthright citizenship” case. Many people will be surprised that the oral argument had almost nothing to do with citizenship or the Trump administration’s policy on the issue. 

The question the Supreme Court grappled with for over two hours was whether federal district courts could issue orders against the government that provide relief to people who are not parties to the case. In other words, if the government is acting illegally, can a district court stop the government action only with respect to the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, or can the court simply tell the government to stop the illegal conduct? The government calls these “universal injunctions;” the plaintiffs referred to them as “nationwide injunctions.”

NAHB filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case in support of nationwide injunctions. We are taking no position in the underlying case that deals with birthright citizenship. When associations like NAHB bring litigation against the government, they do so on behalf of their members. In filing the amicus brief, NAHB is urging the Supreme Court to continue to allow associations to initiate litigation that obtains relief for their members.

The government’s argument is that universal injunctions violate Article III of the Constitution. Therefore, according to the government, not even the Supreme Court can issue universal injunctions.

Somewhat in agreement with the government, some of the justices seem to believe the best way to provide relief to a large group of plaintiffs is to require those plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits. The plaintiffs in the case, states and people born in the country, argued that not allowing for a nationwide ruling would cause chaos because, as people move from one state to another, their citizenship could change depending on where they were located. 

In our brief in favor of nationwide injunctions, NAHB explained that when associations like ours bring lawsuits against the government, we do so on behalf of our members, and that the relief we obtain must go to all of our members — no matter where in the country they are located — in other words, nationwide. 

The Supreme Court also addressed whether it could reach the question of whether district courts can issue nationwide injunctions without reaching the merits of the case. More than once, it was suggested that additional briefings may be appropriate. 

The Supreme Court will likely take some action in this case before the end of June 2025. There will certainly be more to come on the issue of nationwide injunctions, and NAHB will keep our members informed as new developments occur.