U.S. Supreme Court Decision and Its Impact on Presidential Power and Constitutional Rights

Overview of the Supreme Court Ruling in Trump v. CASA

At the conclusion of its 2024-2025 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case Trump v. CASA, which significantly alters the judiciary’s capacity to check presidential authority. This case, centered on the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, sets a precedent for expanding presidential power by limiting judicial avenues to halt unlawful executive actions.

Implications for Judicial Oversight and Protection of Rights

The Court’s ruling restricts lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions—court orders that temporarily block legislation or executive orders across the entire country while legal challenges proceed. Previously, such injunctions protected not only plaintiffs but all Americans affected by unconstitutional government actions. Now, except for class action lawsuits, these injunctions are largely curtailed, undermining the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights nationwide.

Significance for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This decision has profound implications for several Sustainable Development Goals, particularly:

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions – The ruling weakens judicial checks on executive power, threatening the rule of law and access to justice for all citizens.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – By limiting protections that apply universally, marginalized and vulnerable populations may face increased risks of rights violations without effective legal recourse.
3. SDG 5: Gender Equality and SDG 1: No Poverty – The erosion of constitutional protections can disproportionately affect women and impoverished communities reliant on equitable legal safeguards.

Challenges to Democratic Accountability and Rule of Law

• The Supreme Court’s decision effectively diminishes courts’ ability to act as a meaningful check on presidential overreach.
• It permits the executive branch to potentially act with impunity, knowing that legal challenges may be delayed, fragmented, or ineffective.
• Justice Jackson’s dissent highlights this as an “existential threat to the rule of law,” emphasizing the urgency of protecting democratic institutions.

Remaining Legal Pathways and Ongoing Advocacy

Despite the ruling, some legal mechanisms remain available, including nationwide class action lawsuits and other remedies. Lower courts continue to play a critical role in holding the executive accountable for unlawful conduct.

Campaign Legal Center’s Commitment to Democracy and SDGs

In response to this pivotal ruling, the Campaign Legal Center reaffirms its dedication to advancing democracy and upholding constitutional rights aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals by:

• Challenging efforts that undermine voting rights and citizenship protections in court.
• Fighting legislative or judicial attempts to shield the president from accountability and unchecked power.
• Promoting legislation that strengthens democratic institutions and restores public trust.

Conclusion: Upholding Democracy and the Rule of Law

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA serves as a critical reminder that the strength of democracy depends on robust institutions that protect constitutional rights. While the path to justice has narrowed, it remains open. Continued advocacy and legal action are essential to defend the fundamental freedoms of all Americans and to advance the Sustainable Development Goals related to justice, equality, and strong institutions.

Support the Campaign Legal Center in its ongoing efforts to protect birthright citizenship, hold the executive accountable, and uphold the rule of law for the benefit of all citizens.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article focuses on the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law, protecting constitutional rights, and ensuring checks and balances on presidential power.
   • It highlights concerns about the Supreme Court’s decision limiting courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, which impacts the protection of rights and accountability of government actions.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article discusses the protection of birthright citizenship and voting rights, which are essential to reducing inequalities and ensuring equal access to rights for all Americans.
3. SDG 5: Gender Equality (implied)
   • While not explicitly mentioned, protecting citizenship and voting rights contributes to gender equality by ensuring all individuals, including women, have equal legal protections and political participation.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified Based on the Article’s Content

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.
3. SDG 5: Gender Equality (implied)
   • Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article to Measure Progress Towards the Identified Targets

1. Indicators related to SDG 16:
   • Indicator 16.3.1: Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized conflict resolution mechanisms.
   • Indicator 16.6.2: Proportion of the population satisfied with their last experience of public services, which can reflect trust in judicial and governmental institutions.
   • Indicator 16.b.1: Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on grounds of various statuses, including political or other opinion.
   • Implied indicator: Number and scope of nationwide injunctions issued by courts to protect constitutional rights.
2. Indicators related to SDG 10:
   • Indicator 10.3.1: Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on grounds of ethnicity, nationality, or other status.
   • Implied indicator: Legal protections and enforcement actions ensuring birthright citizenship and voting rights.
3. Indicators related to SDG 5 (implied):
   • Indicator 5.5.1: Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments and local governments, reflecting participation and leadership.
   • Implied indicator: Access to citizenship and voting rights for women as a measure of equality.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: campaignlegal.org