Professor Suzette Malveaux Cited in Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Case The Court cited in opposition Malveaux's 2017 Harvard Law Review Forum article on universal injunctions and executive overreach.

By Law Communications
July 3, 2025

Washington and Lee law professor Suzette Malveaux was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in its blockbuster Trump v. CASA decision (birthright citizenship case). In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that federal district court judges do not have authority to issue orders that apply beyond parties to a specific case—known as nationwide or universal injunctions.

In its decision, the Court acknowledged scholarship arguing that universal injunctions are an important tool to check executive overreach, citing in opposition Professor Malveaux’s article “Class Actions, Civil Rights, and the National Injunction,” published in the Harvard Law Review Forum in 2017. This is not the first time Professor Malveaux has been in conversation with the Court on this issue. Her article was previously cited in Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the travel ban implemented during the first Trump presidency.

“While I’m profoundly disappointed by the outcome, I’m grateful to be in the public conversation and part of a community of scholars who are thinking broadly about the judiciary’s power, especially during these dangerous times,” Professor Malveaux said.

The decision in Trump v. CASA did not reach the underlying issue of the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, which continues to face legal challenges. In the meantime, several groups are seeking nationwide relief from the executive order through class-action lawsuits. Professor Malveaux has been quoted in multiple media outlets following Friday’s seminal decision, including the Associated Press, Politico, and Reuters. She cautions that class actions are not an easy alternative to the eradication of nationwide injunctions.

Professor Malveaux was one of four civil procedure professors at W&L Law who filed an amicus brief in the case. She was joined by Professors Alan Trammell, Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett, and Doug Rendleman (emeritus).  The W&L civil procedure professors, who have 90 years of combined experience teaching civil procedure, complex litigation, federal courts, injunctions, remedies, and constitutional law, had argued that nationwide injunctions are central to cases that impact people’s lives across the country, from citizenship, to deportation, to massive layoffs, to environmental protections.

As the professors contend, such “[b]road remedies are sometimes necessary, especially when government actors willfully disregard people’s rights, and the usual tools of aggregate litigation (such as class actions) are not practically available to vindicate those rights.”

While the future remains uncertain, Professor Malveaux says she will continue to advocate for access to justice. “I remain committed to my work, in all its forms. They say the dissents are the majorities of the future. While I may not see this in my lifetime, this gives me hope.”

If you know a W&L faculty member who has done great, accolade-worthy things, tell us about them! Nominate them for an accolade.