In my law office, I’ve met with families this year who came in not knowing if their children would remain U.S. citizens. Not knowing if a court ruling in one part of the country would protect them in another. Not knowing if the law still worked for them at all.

That’s the real-world cost of a case currently before the United States Supreme Court, Trump v. CASA, Inc. 24A884, which asks whether federal judges should continue to have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. Strip that away, and justice becomes a patchwork where the protection of the Constitution depends on where you live or how quickly you can find a courtroom.

This isn’t a theoretical debate. Over the past several months, I’ve worked directly with clients caught in the legal uncertainty surrounding national immigration policy. In these moments, the courts are often the only institution standing between families and irreversible harm. Nationwide injunctions give judges the power to halt an unlawful policy before it can sweep through communities, rather than waiting for it to damage lives one district at a time.

The justices, across ideological lines, appeared skeptical of limiting that power. Justice Jackson called the government’s approach a “catch me if you can” strategy. Justice Barrett questioned the mechanics of a ruling that fragments relief to only a few. Their concerns reflect a deeper truth: a functioning democracy requires courts with the authority to act decisively when rights are on the line.

I’ve spent more than two decades in immigration law, representing individuals whose futures can be transformed overnight by a federal policy. As founder of Saluja Law, I’ve seen how clarity, consistency and timely judicial intervention can prevent legal chaos. Without tools like nationwide injunctions, chaos becomes the system.

If the Court rules to curtail this authority, unlawful policies could remain in place even after being ruled unconstitutional, remaining in effect until struck down one courtroom at a time. That’s not judicial restraint. It’s institutional paralysis.

The decision, expected this summer, will ripple far beyond immigration. It will set precedent for how and whether our courts can respond to national crises, protect constitutional rights and prevent executive overreach regardless of who is in office.

A healthy republic depends on checks and balances that work, and justice, if it’s to mean anything, must not be limited by geography.

As this decision nears, I remain committed to advocating for the integrity of our legal system and the people it serves because justice, at its best, is both principled and practical. When the law only works in some places, it doesn’t work at all.

(Paul Saluja is a nationally recognized immigration attorney and founder of Saluja Law, based in Charleston, West Virginia. He advises clients across the country on complex immigration and constitutional law issues.)