"As part of National Journal's "Trump 2.0: From Platform to Policy" webinar series, editor-in-chief Jeff Dufour spoke with Bauer about the biggest changes in the law so far in Trump's second term. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

I wanted to start with Trump v. CASA. Am I correct in assuming that this might be the most impactful case coming out of the recent term in the sense that it limits nationwide injunctions?

I would see it as probably an expected outcome. The conservative majority on the Court had made it very clear they were unhappy with the intensity, the increased volume of nationwide or universal injunctions. There's a lot of literature on it. There were a number of scholars who took the position that something had to be done to clarify when lower courts had the ability to take a case before them and apply it on a nationwide basis.

The decision was maybe a little more complicated than ruling out any and all universal injunctions in any and all cases, and certainly on the question of the birthright-citizenship matter, the actual merits of the executive order. The Court didn't address the merits of that at all, nor give a hint about what it thought, or what the majority thought the merits would be. But it also made it very clear that they had other tools they could use to step in at an early stage in litigation and rule that the order could not go into effect.

And so if someone wants to think that maybe this case against universal injunctions means that these individual cases are just going to drag on and on, they're going to multiply in number, and there won't be any decisive resolution of the constitutionality of an order like the birthright-citizenship order, I think the Supreme Court made it very clear that that wasn't the case, that there were other avenues for achieving early and emergency relief in these cases. So to be sure, I'm not denying it's important. But it's not unexpected."

Read the full Q&A here.