The Supreme Court ruled limiting nationwide injunctions in a case about President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order a month ago, but courts are still finding ways to issue sweeping injunctions.

As lower courts continue to navigate the various lawsuits regarding Trump’s birthright citizenship order, which is poised to return to the Supreme Court on the merits in the near future, many are finding ways to offer a sweeping injunction blocking the order despite the Supreme Court narrowing the circumstances in which a universal injunction may be issued.

Recommended Stories

• Ratcliffe suggests Clinton, Brennan won't have statute of limitations protection in Russiagate case
• Bongino 'shocked' by what FBI has unearthed from unspecified corruption investigation
• Ghislaine Maxwell granted limited immunity to meet with DOJ

Class-action becomes the main avenue for sweeping injunctions

Since the Supreme Court restricted lower courts’ reliance on universal injunctions, opponents of the birthright citizenship order have increasingly turned to class action certification.

The justices discussed this alternative to a sweeping injunction in their opinions accompanying the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, and opponents of the president’s order quickly filed amendments to their complaints to seek class action certification.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the birthright citizenship order in a New Hampshire federal district court and requested a nationwide class certification for those who could be affected by Trump’s order. United States District Judge Joseph Laplante granted the order for a preliminary injunction and the provisional class certification, effectively blocking the executive order nationwide from being enforced against those who would be affected by it. It remains the only class-action injunction of the birthright citizenship order since the Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling on universal injunctions.

Groups and activists have filed motions seeking to acquire class action certification in other related cases to effectively seek the same type of relief provided by a sweeping injunction. In Maryland, a U.S. district judge said she would grant class action certification in another lawsuit challenging the birthright citizenship order if the higher appeals court partially remanded the case to allow her to do so.

“The Court does not have jurisdiction over the motion because nearly every aspect of it is on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. If the Fourth Circuit were to remand for the limited purpose of allowing this Court to decide the motion for a class-wide preliminary injunction, the Court would grant the motion,” Judge Deborah Boardman wrote in her order.

Some courts still believe they can issue universal injunctions for states

While the Supreme Court largely gutted the use of universal injunctions by saying they likely exceed the power vested in the judicial branch, the justices left open the possibility for lower courts to issue sweeping relief when states are the plaintiffs, as is the case in some birthright citizenship litigation.

“The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate; we therefore leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority regarding states suing the Trump administration.

Two federal courts have upheld universal injunctions despite the Supreme Court’s ruling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 to uphold the universal injunction against the birthright citizenship order, declaring it unlawful.

“The States would be obligated to overhaul their existing systems for determining citizenship and incur an administrative burden even if the injunction were narrowed as Defendants suggest. Again, these are costs that are not recoverable in damages,” the appeals panel’s majority opinion said.

“It is impossible to avoid this harm absent a uniform application of the Citizenship Clause throughout the United States. For that reason, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal preliminary injunction, and we affirm the injunction’s scope,” the majority said.

On Friday, Judge Leo Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts also ruled that a universal injunction blocking the order could stand because it was the proper remedy for the states suing the Trump administration.

“The Court finds again, as it did before, that the plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing entitlement to ‘complete’ preliminary injunctive relief in a form that protects them against the irreparable financial and administrative burdens that they have shown the facially unlawful Executive Order would visit upon them,” Sorokin wrote.

SUPREME COURT PAUSES RULING LIMITING VOTING RIGHTS ACT CHALLENGES

While the courtroom battles over injunctions blocking the birthright citizenship order continue, the legal battle regarding the order itself is also working its way through the federal courts. It is one of the many legal challenges that will likely be heard at some point by the Supreme Court, which has yet to hear the merits of the birthright citizenship order, in either the upcoming term or the term after.

The case State of Washington v. Trump, in which the Ninth Circuit upheld the nationwide injunction and ruled the executive order was unlawful on Wednesday, will likely be the first case that could be appealed to the Supreme Court on the merits of the order.