8:25-cv-00201-DLB) CASA, INC. v. Donald J. Trump

FILED: July 29, 2025
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 25-1153
(8:25-cv-00201-DLB)
___________________
CASA, INC.; ASYLUM SEEKER ADVOCACY PROJECT, INC.; MARIBEL,
Individually and as next friend to her future child, c/o CASA, Inc.; JUANA, Individually
and as next friend to her future child, c/o CASA, Inc.; TRINIDAD GARCIA,
Individually and as next friend to her future child, c/o Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project;
MONICA, Individually and as next friend to her future child, c/o Asylum Seeker
Advocacy Project; LIZA, Individually and as next friend to her future child, c/o Institute
for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, In his official capacity as President of the United States, c/o
Attorney General of the United States; SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, In their official capacity; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES, In their official capacity; SECRETARY OF THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, In their official capacity, c/o
Office of the General Counsel; DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, In their official capacity, c/o Office of the Chief
Counsel; COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, In
their official capacity, c/o Office of the Chief Counsel; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, c/o Attorney General of the United States
Defendants - Appellants
-------------------------------
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS; THE STATE OF TENNESSEE; AMERICA'S FUTURE;
CITIZENS UNITED; CONSERVATIVE LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION
FUND; GUN OWNERS FOUNDATION; IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW
INSTITUTE; GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC.; FORMER NATIONAL
SECURITY OFFICIAL JOSHUA STEINMAN; LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE; U.S.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

-- 1 of 3 --

Amici Supporting Appellants
IMMIGRATION LAW SCHOLAR KRISTIN COLLINS; IMMIGRATION LAW
SCHOLAR GERALD NEUMAN; IMMIGRATION LAW SCHOLAR RACHEL
ROSENBLOOM; FRED T. KOREMATSU CENTER FOR LAW & EQUALITY;
ASIAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND; CENTER FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS AND CRITICAL JUSTICE; 84 ADDITIONAL NONPROFIT AND
GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS AND RACE AND LAW CENTERS; NATIONAL
ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ET AL.; FREE SPEECH FOR
PEOPLE; TAHIRIH JUSTICE CENTER; HARBORCOV; ASISTA; 31 ADDITIONAL
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS SERVING IMMIGRANT SURVIVORS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING;
SCHOLARS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND IMMIGRATION; SECURE
FAMILIES INITIATIVE; PROFESSOR PAUL FINKELMAN; PROFESSOR
GABRIEL J. CHIN; PROFESSOR ERIKA LEE; MEMBERS OF THE U.S.
CONGRESS; HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST; UNITED STATELESS; WOMEN'S
REFUGEE COMMISSION; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE; THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS;
THE EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY; LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS; ORIGINALIST SCHOLARS; PROFESSOR ADAM
ROTHMAN
Amici Supporting Appellees
___________________
O R D E R
___________________
In Trump v. CASA, Inc., 145 S. Ct. 2540 (2025), the Supreme Court granted the
government’s application for a partial stay of the preliminary injunction entered in this case
“to the extent that the injunction[] [is] broader than necessary to provide complete relief to
each plaintiff with standing to sue” and “to the extent that [it] prohibit[s] executive agencies
from developing and issuing public guidance about the Executive’s plans to implement . .
. Executive Order [No. 14160].” Id. at 2562–63. The Court directed that the lower courts
“move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff,” the injunction in this
case comports with the announced rule and with principles of equity. Id. at 2563.

-- 2 of 3 --

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the government’s appeal of the preliminary
injunction is now before our court, divesting the district court of authority over the
injunction. In response to the ruling in CASA, the district court issued an indicative ruling,
noting that the Supreme Court had left open the possibility of broad preliminary relief by
way of class action and indicating that it would grant the plaintiffs’ motion for a class-wide
preliminary injunction if it had jurisdiction to do so. Trump, No. 8:25-cv-00201-DLB,
ECF No. 119, 2025 WL 1952521, at *1–2 (D. Md. July 16, 2025). The plaintiffs have now
moved for a remand under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 to allow the district
court to so act.
Although the plaintiffs seek a limited remand, we think the better course is to
dismiss the pending appeal and remand this case to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P.
12.1(b) (allowing court of appeals to dismiss appeal in response to indicative ruling). That
will allow the district court to comport expeditiously with the Supreme Court’s directions
in CASA, ensuring that any injunction complies with that decision. It will also allow for
an immediate ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for class-wide relief, so that appellate review
of the merits of that relief can come sooner rather than later.
In view of our dismissal of the plaintiffs’ appeal, we deny the plaintiffs’ Motion for
Limited Remand as moot, and we deny the government’s cross-motion to hold Plaintiff’s
Motion for Limited Remand in Abeyance.
Entered at the direction of Judge Niemeyer with the concurrence of Judge Gregory
and Judge Harris.
For the Court
/s/ Nwamaka Anowi, Clerk

-- 3 of 3 --