On January 29, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order that denied citizenship to many children born in the United States if their mothers were unlawfully or temporarily in the United States (e.g., on a student or tourist visa). Citizens Assisting and Sheltering the Abused (CASA), Asylum Support Appeals Project (ASAP), several pregnant women, and 22 states challenged the constitutionality of the Order. After three district courts issued universal injunctions that applied nationwide (not just to the parties of the case), and three federal appellate courts upheld them, Trump applied to the Supreme Court for a stay of the universal injunctions on the ground that they were unconstitutional. The case pitted one controversial constitutional question against another: “Does Trump have the unilateral constitutional authority to deny citizenship to these children despite the legal tradition of U.S. birthright citizenship?” versus “Do federal judges have the constitutional authority to issue universal injunctions?” On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court handed down a 6–3 decision that adroitly sidestepped both constitutional questions by holding that Congress never granted federal courts the authority to issue universal injunctions. Although this decision formally relied solely on statutory interpretation, Trump v. CASA will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the American constitutional framework by shifting power from the lower federal judiciary to the Executive Branch. Only future Supreme Court decisions will tell us the extent of the shift.