1. Go to court
2. There becomes a local injunction, given that this is where the actual case is being adjudicated.
3. POTUS always has to interpret what the law means when enforcing the law
How is that any different than what I said?
Prior to this ruling, if a
federal court found an executive order unconstitutional or unlawful, it often issued a "universal" or "nationwide" injunction, preventing the government from enforcing that order against
anyone in the country. The
CASA decision largely eliminates this practice, meaning executive orders
can take effect in areas not covered by a specific injunction.
Indeed, following the
CASA decision, some states that were part of the initial challenge to the birthright citizenship executive order
do still have injunctions in place that protect their residents, as those states were original plaintiffs. Other states, or individuals within those states, would need to file their own lawsuits to seek similar relief.
So:
1: To find relief from an unconstitutional EO a
Class has to be created assuming it can clear that bar (a process that could take weeks to months depending on the state you liv in).
2: You have the join the class.
3. The local court
can issue a TRO
if your lawyer can clear the bar (which often fails on procedural grounds, even if the courts find sufficient justification), but the TRO only applies to the individual or members of a class.
3: You then have to hope that the lawsuit ends in your favor.
So if you win your case, the court can issue an injunction, but it would typically be a "local" or "party-specific" injunction, meaning it would only protect you (and potentially other specific individuals or a certified class of people
within that lawsuit). It would
not automatically apply nationwide or even statewide unless the lawsuit itself was a successful class action encompassing a broader group.
In other words:
If an executive order on birthright citizenship were to go into effect a newborn of an immigrant would be subject to that interpretation (even if others have won their cases in the same or other jurisdictions). To challenge it and assert your 14th Amendment rights, you would likely need to initiate a lawsuit. Until a court rules in your favor (or a class action is certified that includes you), the administration's policy would apply to you even if, as stated, it didn't apply to others.
Now in my ammunition example, there is no guarantee of a TRO in many cases, your person or business would be subject to that rule and you could have your property taken and destroyed, you could lose your business or you could be charged (even if courts don't uphold, the punishment is in the time and expense it takes to defend yourself) federally under the EO's interpretation.
Which means, while the law could be found unconstitutional in one place and rights restored, in another it could be found constitutional.
Of course it would elevate to SCOTUS, but that can take years
if SCOTUS chooses to hear it, in the mean time you are subject to that law, which isn't always a big deal, in other cases irreversible damage can be done, which is, of course, why nationwide TRO's exist.
