The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a case with potential consequences for how executive power and judicial oversight interact. The case’s outcome could directly affect federal housing programs and grant disbursements. In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Court is considering whether President Trump’s January 2025 executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders violates the Constitution, and whether federal district judges can continue issuing nationwide injunctions to block such orders from taking effect across the country.

Already this year, courts have blocked multiple Trump administration actions through nationwide injunctions, including attempts to suspend energy-efficiency programs and redirect HUD grant funding tied to social policy directives. The future of these injunctions and the uniformity of federal program protections nationwide depends on how broadly the Court rules.

What You Need to Know: The decision in Trump v. CASA could block the use of nationwide injunctions, which federal judges have used to halt administration policies for all affected parties, not just those named in lawsuits. If the Court limits this authority, it could result in uneven enforcement of federal programs and force nonprofit groups, state governments, and local housing agencies to challenge executive orders one jurisdiction at a time. This would make it significantly harder to protect access to housing funds nationwide.

For example, in April 2025, a district court in Rhode Island issued a preliminary injunction forcing HUD to resume distributing $1 billion in Green and Resilient Retrofit Program (GRRP) funds after the Trump administration froze the program. If nationwide injunctions are curtailed, similar relief may be limited to specific states, which would leave other jurisdictions without access to the same resources or protections. The same risks apply to nonprofit fair housing groups, infrastructure projects, and federal employment protections that are currently tied up in litigation.

One Level Deeper: Some of the justices appear skeptical of the sweeping use of injunctions. Still, others may be reluctant to dismantle one of the judiciary’s only tools to prevent widespread policy shifts pending legal review. But even a narrow ruling could have great effects. If the Court determines that district judges cannot issue nationwide blocks, future administrations, whether Democratic or Republican, would gain the ability to enact policies with uneven national reach until multiple courts intervene.