A federal judge in New Hampshire has issued a critical ruling, temporarily halting President Donald Trump’s executive order that seeks to restrict birthright citizenship. This decision marks the latest development in the ongoing legal battle over who qualifies for citizenship under the U.S. Constitution, particularly for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. The ruling comes shortly after a significant Supreme Court decision altered the landscape for challenging federal policies, forcing opponents of the order to pursue specific legal avenues.
The judge’s action approves a class-action lawsuit brought by immigrant advocates. This class-action approach is key, as it appears to align with new limitations set by the Supreme Court on how widely federal judges can block presidential directives. By certifying the case as a class action, the judge was able to issue a preliminary injunction that carries nationwide effect, preventing the executive order from taking effect for a specific group of affected individuals. The order had been slated to go into force on July 27.
Judge Laplante’s Decision and Reasoning
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in Concord, New Hampshire, is the federal judge behind this pivotal ruling. His decision, issued on July 10, stemmed from a legal challenge filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) immediately following the Supreme Court’s related ruling in June. The ACLU filed the suit on behalf of immigrant parents and their infant children whose citizenship status would be jeopardized by the executive order.
Judge Laplante granted class-action status specifically for the babies who would be denied citizenship under the terms of Trump’s order. He did not certify the parents as part of this specific class for the purpose of the injunction. In his written order, Judge Laplante clearly defined the certified class: “All current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025, where (1) that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
Why the Block Was Issued
The judge stated unequivocally that issuing the injunction was “not a close call.” He emphasized the potential for “irreparable harm” that denying citizenship to U.S.-born children would cause. Judge Laplante described birthright citizenship as “the greatest privilege that exists in the world.” He found that the harm plaintiffs would suffer without the injunction significantly outweighed any potential harm to the administration if the order was blocked.
Judge Laplante characterized the executive order as being of “highly questionable constitutionality.” He noted that it would deny citizenship to thousands of individuals. His ruling aligns with the widely accepted interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. This amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” It also follows a key 1898 Supreme Court precedent, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that children born in the U.S. are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Previous judicial rulings against the order had also cited its likely violation of the 14th Amendment.
The Complex Supreme Court Backdrop
This latest judicial block unfolds against the backdrop of a recent, impactful ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. Just weeks prior, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision that broadly curtailed the power of federal judges to issue nationwide, or universal, injunctions against presidential policies. The Trump administration had appealed earlier temporary holds on the birthright citizenship order, arguing lower courts lacked the authority to block a presidential directive nationally while cases were still being considered.
The Supreme Court sided with the administration on this procedural point, narrowing three previous nationwide injunctions against the birthright directive. This decision effectively cleared the path for the executive order to potentially take effect on July 27. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling was strictly focused on the scope of judicial injunctions. Crucially, the high court did not address the legal merits or the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright citizenship order itself.
The Path Forward: Class Actions
Legal experts and immigrant rights advocates quickly identified that the Supreme Court’s ruling, while limiting individual judges, left open specific legal avenues for challenging federal policies on a broad scale. One such path explicitly permitted by the Supreme Court was through class-action lawsuits. This is precisely the strategy the ACLU and other plaintiffs employed in the New Hampshire case.
By successfully arguing for and obtaining class-action status, the plaintiffs were able to frame their challenge as representing a specific, defined group of people nationwide who would be harmed by the policy. This legal maneuver provided Judge Laplante with the basis to issue an injunction that, while technically applying to the certified class, effectively functions as a nationwide block on the order’s enforcement for that group. Cody Wofsy, lead attorney for the plaintiffs with the ACLU, stated the injunction would “protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order.”
Administration Responds Vigorously
The Trump administration swiftly challenged the validity of Judge Laplante’s ruling. White House spokesman Harrison Fields issued a strong statement criticizing the decision. He called it “an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s clear order against universal relief.”
Fields further accused the judge of disregarding the rule of law. He claimed the judge had “abusing class action certification procedures.” The spokesman declared that the Trump administration would “be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement.” This response echoes previous statements from Attorney General Pam Bondi, who had similarly criticized judges blocking administration policies as “rogue.”
The Battle Over Birthright
Restricting birthright citizenship has been a long-standing goal for President Trump and a key part of his broader immigration crackdown. His executive order aimed to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. whose mothers were temporarily present (like on visitor or student visas) if the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. It also targeted children whose mothers were considered unlawfully present if the father lacked citizenship or permanent residency status.
Opponents, including Democratic-led states and immigrant rights groups, argue forcefully that this policy flies in the face of the Constitution and over a century of legal precedent. They contend that the administration’s interpretation is incorrect and that the 14th Amendment’s plain language guarantees citizenship based solely on being born on U.S. soil and being subject to its laws, regardless of parental status. They warn that the order could deny citizenship to over 150,000 newborns annually, potentially creating a “permanent, multigenerational subclass.”
Impact, Next Steps, and Future Uncertainty
The immediate impact of Judge Laplante’s ruling is that President Trump’s executive order is once again paused. It cannot take effect on the previously scheduled date of July 27, at least not for the class of individuals covered by the injunction. The decision grants the government a temporary reprieve. Judge Laplante stayed his injunction for seven days, specifically to allow the administration time to file an appeal.
Given the White House’s strong reaction, an appeal is virtually guaranteed. The legal battle will likely move quickly to a higher court. The administration will argue that the judge misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s recent ruling and improperly granted class-action status to create an end-run around the new limitations on injunctions. Conversely, the plaintiffs will argue that the judge correctly applied the law and the Supreme Court’s own guidance, utilizing the class-action path left open for challenges.
The future of the executive order remains uncertain. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutional question itself. This means the fundamental legality of the Trump administration’s stance on birthright citizenship has not been decided by the highest court. The current ruling is a temporary block based on the likely success of the constitutional challenge, but the ultimate fate of the order depends on further appeals and potentially a future Supreme Court review of the constitutional question itself.
Frequently Asked Questions
What specific Trump executive order did the judge block regarding citizenship?
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire blocked President Trump’s executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” This order sought to limit birthright citizenship, specifically aiming to deny it to children born in the United States whose parents were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, particularly those born to parents who were unlawfully present or temporarily present on certain visas.
How did the recent Supreme Court ruling impact this judge’s ability to block the order nationwide?
The Supreme Court recently restricted the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide, universal injunctions against presidential policies. However, that ruling left open the possibility for nationwide blocks through class-action lawsuits. The judge in New Hampshire granted class-action status to the lawsuit challenging the order, which allowed him to issue a preliminary injunction that effectively blocks the order nationwide for the specific group (class) of babies who would be affected by the policy.
Why do opponents argue the birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional?
Opponents, including the ACLU, argue the order violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” A long-standing interpretation, supported by the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, holds that this clause guarantees birthright citizenship regardless of the immigration status of the parents. Opponents argue Trump’s order contradicts this constitutional guarantee and established legal precedent.
The decision by Judge Laplante ensures that the legal battle over birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of U.S. constitutional law, will continue. While the administration prepares its appeal, immigrant families and advocates see the ruling as a vital, albeit temporary, defense of citizenship rights as traditionally understood. The case highlights the ongoing tension between the executive branch’s policy goals and the judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution and the limits on federal power, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent directives on injunctions. The ultimate resolution of this issue will likely depend on further court proceedings, possibly reaching the Supreme Court on the constitutional question itself.
