This is a Notebook LM review of the Supreme Court case, Trump v. CASA, Inc., addressing the use of universal injunctions against a presidential Executive Order (No. 14160) concerning birthright citizenship. The majority opinion by Justice Barrett, joined by five other justices, holds that such broad injunctions, which prohibit enforcement against anyone, likely exceed the equitable authority of federal courts as defined by the Judiciary Act of 1789, as they lack historical precedent in English or early American equity practice. The Court grants partial stays to limit injunctions to named plaintiffs, emphasizing that relief must be no more burdensome than necessary to provide complete relief to those with standing. Concurring opinions from Justices Thomas and Alito reinforce the plaintiff-specific nature of equitable remedies and raise concerns about third-party standing and potential workarounds. In stark contrast, the dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, argues that the Executive Order is patently unconstitutional and that universal injunctions are a necessary and historically rooted tool to prevent irreparable harm and ensure the rule of law for all, not just named parties. Justice Jackson's separate dissent highlights that limiting these injunctions creates a "zone of lawlessness" where the Executive can disregard the Constitution for those unable to sue.