Statement by William A. Brewer III, Partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, on Supreme Court Hearing Regarding President Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
May 15, 2025 — The U.S. Supreme Court hearing today represented a pivotal moment, not for immigration law but also for the broader issue of judicial power and its proper scope. As counsel deeply involved in constitutional and immigration matters, we closely followed the arguments presented.
On the ultimate efficacy of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, the justices appeared skeptical over the order, which seeks to deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. The longstanding precedent set by the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark appeared front of mind for several justices, highlighting significant constitutional concerns with the executive order.
However, it was Justice Sonia Sotomayor's commentary regarding the challenges of eliminating nationwide injunctions that underscored the importance of today’s argument. She noted that the removal of such remedies could inundate courts with countless individual lawsuits. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson further emphasized the risks inherent in reducing nationwide injunctions, potentially undermining the consistency and reliability essential to our legal system.
Conversely, other justices expressed concerns about judicial overreach, specifically through nationwide injunctions issued by federal district courts. Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested class-action lawsuits as preferable alternatives, emphasizing procedural rigor and judicial precision.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised pointed questions regarding the Trump administration’s inconsistent positions on nationwide injunctions versus class-action litigation, highlighting the nuanced challenges in balancing judicial remedies.
The Court’s upcoming decision, expected by late June or early July, carries profound implications. While Trump's executive order seems likely to be invalidated, the broader question of limiting nationwide injunctions may significantly impact future judicial strategies for challenging federal policies.
We at Brewer, through our Storefront affiliate, remain committed to safeguarding constitutional principles, advocating for consistent application of the law, and closely monitoring developments that could reshape judicial authority and executive accountability.
Law360 reports on NRA First Amendment Case Before the Supreme Court
February 21, 2024 – Law360 reports that former New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) Superintendent Maria T. Vullo filed a respondent brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with the case National Rifle Association of America (NRA) v. Vullo, which will be heard in March. The NRA is represented in the case by Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh.
In a 2018 complaint against Vullo, the NRA said guidance memos Vullo issued to banks and insurers recommending that New York financial institutions evaluate the reputational risks arising from their dealings with the NRA amounted to an “overt viewpoint-based discrimination campaign.” In her brief to the Supreme Court, Vullo rejected the NRA's position that the statements were a "veiled threat."
NRA counsel William A. Brewer III told Law360 in a statement that the "respondents understate the NRA's allegations."
"It is not just that Vullo 'spoke out about matters of public concern,' but that she intentionally engineered a blacklisting campaign against the NRA at the direction of then Governor Cuomo because of its public advocacy," Brewer said. "The claim that the NRA's arguments should be rejected because they might 'encourage damage suits' against public officials is a red herring — an unpersuasive excuse to avoid scrutiny of the actions in question."
The NRA is also represented by Noah Peters and Sarah B. Rogers of Brewer Attorneys & Counselors.
Law360: 18 States Want High Court To Take NRA Blacklisting Suit
April 6, 2023 — Law360 reports that Montana and 17 other states are "lining up behind the National Rifle Association at the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to take up the gun group's appeal arguing that a probe into NRA-affiliated insurers and statements from a former New York official about the reputational harm of associating with the group violated its constitutional rights."
The report states that the attorneys general filed an amicus brief on April 4, which asks the court to correct a Second Circuit decision they say "departed from [the Supreme Court's] clear instruction and gave state officials license to target and crackdown on their political opponents' protected speech."
The NRA, which is represented by Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, filed suit in 2018 against former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) and then-DFS Superintendent Maria Vullo. The NRA contends the parties took aim at the NRA and conspired to use DFS's regulatory power to financially blacklist the NRA – coercing banks and insurers to cut ties with the Association, in order to suppress its pro-Second Amendment speech.
The NRA's First Amendment claims withstood multiple motions to dismiss. But in 2022, after Vullo appealed the trial court's ruling on qualified immunity, the Second Circuit struck down the NRA's claims.
As Law360 reports, in its amicus brief, the states said, "The Second Circuit's decision gives government officials license to financially cripple their political opponents, or otherwise stifle their protected speech — whether those rivals advocate for school choice, abortion rights, religious liberty, environmental protections, or any other politically salient issue."
The NRA is represented by William A. Brewer III, Sarah B. Rogers and Noah Peters of Brewer Attorneys & Counselors and Eugene Volokh.
Read the full report here.
Read the amicus brief here.