DISSENT OF THE PEOPLE Trump v. CASA
The People of the United States issue a moral dissent against the Supreme Court's restriction of nationwide injunctions, defending constitutional rights and birthright citizenship using John Adams’ "Moral Algorithm" as a guiding principle for justice for all.
“We the People” are not passive subjects—we are the ultimate sovereigns of this Republic. Our government derives its just powers from our ongoing consent, and we exercise that authority through our representatives. When any branch strays from the common good, it is not only our right but our duty to dissent, to speak, and to course-correct. The Court may interpret the law, but We, the People, are the foundation of all law and legitimacy.
In Response to the Ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (24A884, 2025)
We the People of the United States, in whom all just authority ultimately resides, issue this dissent not from a bench of robes but from the enduring foundation of our Republic. Our authority is not derived from appointment or election, but from nature and the consent of the governed—enshrined by our Founders and affirmed by every generation that has fought for liberty.
We speak now because the Supreme Court, in narrowing its vision of justice, has failed its higher duty to the people.
I. First Principles
Governments, as John Adams declared, are instituted "for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men."
This is the Moral Algorithm—the core test by which we, the People, judge our institutions. And by that measure, this ruling fails.
By deciding that only those with standing in court may be shielded from the enforcement of an executive order that likely violates the Constitution, the Court has privatized justice. It declares that even if a law is unjust or unlawful, the government may enforce it against the many, so long as only a few have sued.
This is legal minimalism at the cost of moral legitimacy.
II. The Constitution Is Not a Contract of the Few
The Constitution was not written to protect plaintiffs. It was written to protect the people.
The Court’s majority claims that historical practice did not include “universal injunctions.” But neither did it include the racial equality of Brown v. Board, nor the marriage equality of Obergefell. Rights do not wait for perfect precedent. They demand righteous courage.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...”
When a President attempts to redefine this in ways that risk stripping citizenship from children born here, the Judiciary must not ask who filed, but who is threatened.
If a child is denied their birthright because their mother did not file the correct paperwork in time, then the Court has allowed rights to be rationed by red tape.
This violates the founding promise.
III. The People's Justice Must Be Whole
Justice must be whole, or it is not justice at all. To protect one mother’s child while exposing another’s to injustice—solely because she is not listed on a docket—is to make a mockery of “equal protection under the law.”
Courts once denied slaves their freedom on procedural grounds. They once upheld forced sterilizations and internment camps using legal reasoning devoid of moral principle. We have lived through the cost of procedural obedience and moral silence.
Now again, the Court favors technical restraint over human right.
We say: No law—no executive order, no doctrine of equity—can bind the People to a policy that violates their Constitution.
IV. We Reclaim Our Role as Guardians
When any branch of government refuses to act in accordance with the common good, the People retain the ultimate power to correct that course.
The Founders wrote, in the Declaration:
“Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”
We are not calling for rebellion—we are calling for remembrance.
We call upon our fellow citizens, legislators, educators, and public servants to recognize this ruling not as the end of a legal battle but as the beginning of a moral reckoning. A government that refuses to protect all its people equally must be held accountable—not in violence, but in vigilance.
V. Our Ongoing Consent Is Not Unconditional
This government, like all governments, exists by the consent of the governed. That consent is not permanent—it is earned, retained, or revoked based on adherence to principle.
The Moral Algorithm is simple and eternal:
If a policy serves the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people—it is just.
If it serves the private interests of the powerful while denying those goods to the rest—it is tyranny.
By that test, this decision has failed.
We, the People, Therefore Dissent
We dissent in the name of liberty.
We dissent in defense of every child born under our flag.
We dissent because we still believe in government by the people, for the people, and accountable to the people.
Let this dissent echo not in marble chambers, but in schools, in town halls, in statehouses, in homes. Let it guide those who write the next law, those who interpret it, and those who will rise to replace the unjust.
For it is we, not the Court, who are the final guardians of the Republic.
— The People of the United States
June 27, 2025
DISSENT OF THE PEOPLE
In Response to the Narrowing of Nationwide Injunctions Against Trump-Era Policies
We the People of the United States, the ultimate holders of power in this Republic, issue this collective dissent. We ground our authority in the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, and the moral philosophy of John Adams—a “Moral Algorithm” demanding government serve the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of all.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (24A884) removes historically significant judicial safeguards and permits enforcement of broad executive policies against many—so long as some lack standing. By fracturing nationwide justice, it violates the moral compact between government and governed.
I. Groundswell of Nationwide Injunctions
Across multiple domains of governance, federal courts issued universal injunctions against Trump executive actions found likely unconstitutional:
1. Birthright Citizenship Orders
At least four separate district courts (in Washington, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts/New Jersey) issued preliminary injunctions halting Executive Order 14160—banning automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporary-status parents—each applying the injunction nationwide naacpldf.org+15politico.com+15thetimes.co.uk+15congress.gov+4reddit.com+4supremecourt.gov+4supremecourt.gov+1rollcall.com+1en.wikipedia.org.
2. Federal Employee Bargaining Rights
A nationwide injunction blocked Executive Order restricting collective bargaining for nearly a million federal workers (filed by civil service unions), finding overreach and retaliation fedsmith.com.
3. State Grant Funding Freeze
A federal judge in Rhode Island barred a Trump administration memo freezing federal funds to 22 states—calling it “wide-ranging, all-encompassing” and in violation of separation of powers fedsmith.com+2en.wikipedia.org+2cbsnews.com+2.
4. Gender-Affirming Care for Minors
Multiple nationwide injunctions halted Executive Order 14187, which threatened to withhold federal funding from hospitals offering gender-affirming care to minors—recognizing constitutional concerns and medical autonomy fedsmith.com+11en.wikipedia.org+11thedailybeast.com+11.
5. Tariffs Under IEEPA
The U.S. Court of International Trade permanently enjoined enforcement of Trump-era “Liberation Day” tariffs for lacking statutory authority, declaring them a misapplication of emergency powers democracydocket.com+14en.wikipedia.org+14fedsmith.com+14.
II. The Moral Algorithm at Work
The Moral Algorithm demands that any policy must protect the common good and avoid concentrating power at the expense of citizenship, rights, or democratic governance.
| Policy Area | Universal Injunction Issued? | Moral Assessment | Remedy Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| Birthright citizenship | ✅ Multiple courts | Denial of citizenship threatens equality and belonging | Nationwide halt |
| Federal employee rights | ✅ Unions blocked the order | Undermines labor protections essential to public welfare | Nationwide relief |
| Grant funding | ✅ Rhode Island injunction | Disempowers states, disrupts services | Nationwide relief |
| Gender-affirming care | ✅ Hospitals shielded | Threatens health and autonomy of minors | Nationwide relief |
| Emergency tariffs | ✅ Trade court decision | Rule of law requires limits on executive emergency powers | Permanent nationwide bar |
All of these targeted, individual cases shine a light on constitutional violations with nation-wide impact. For each, justice must follow constitutional principle—not jurisdictional happenstance.
III. Why Nationwide Injunctions Must Remain
- Citizens’ Rights Are Not Optional
National policies either respect or violate rights. If broad executive actions offend the Constitution, then all affected persons deserve protection—without discrimination by geography or standing. - Government of the People, by the People
Our social contract guarantees equal protection and due process for every person, not just those with access to courts. Laws that jeopardize rights must be fixed for everyone. - Precedent Requires Moral Courage
As with Brown and Obergefell, courts must sometimes exceed precedent to uphold justice when rules fail the moral test. The Moral Algorithm demands that legal doctrines serve people—not people serve legal technicalities. - Procedural Formalism Undermines Accountability
Technical limits on injunctions enable unconstitutional policies to quietly take effect across much of the nation—until enough plaintiffs sue. This shifts the burden onto the people to litigate ad infinitum.
IV. The People's Declaration: These Must Stop
We firmly assert:
- That all nationwide injunctions shielding Americans from unconstitutional executive actions must remain in place until final judicial resolution.
- That policies stripping citizenship, rolling back labor rights, freezing grants, denying health care, or imposing unwarranted tariffs are incompatible with constitutional governance.
- That the judiciary’s refusal to extend relief beyond plaintiffs abandons the broader duty to the People, sacrificing equality on the altar of narrow process.
V. A Call to Action
Let this dissent serve as a civic call:
- To State and Federal Courts: Restore full nationwide injunctions when constitutional harms are systemic.
- To Legislators and Officials: Propose statutory safeguards that affirm equitable nationwide relief and prevent executive overreach.
- To the American People: Stay alert, organize, and press institutions to commit to justice—not just compliance with technical rules.
Our rights are indivisible. Our justice must be universal.
We, the People, therefore dissent.
June 27, 2025—in solemn recommitment to the promise of the Republic.