KEY POINTS:
- Federal judge grants nationwide class-action status to block Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order
- Ruling tests new limits imposed by Supreme Court on nationwide injunctions
- Judge calls denial of citizenship “irreparable harm” and “the greatest privilege that exists in the world”
- Trump administration expected to appeal immediately
- Constitutional scholars maintain 14th Amendment clearly protects birthright citizenship
A federal judge in New Hampshire delivered a significant ruling Thursday by blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship through a class-action lawsuit, marking the first major test of the Supreme Court’s recent limitations on nationwide injunctions.
According to CNN, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, granted a request from immigration rights attorneys to certify a nationwide class comprising “only those deprived of citizenship” and issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely blocking Trump’s Day One order from being enforced against any baby born after February 20, 2025.
The decision represents what the American Civil Liberties Union called “a huge victory” that “will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended,” as reported by CNN. According to the ACLU’s Cody Wofsy, who argued the case, the judge stated from the bench that U.S. citizenship “is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
Background and Legal Context
Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day in office January 20, directs all U.S. government agencies to refuse to issue citizenship documents to children born to undocumented immigrants or who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, according to Fox News.
The order has faced immediate legal challenges from multiple fronts. According to The Washington Post, advocacy groups and officials in 22 states, plus Washington D.C. and San Francisco, have sued over the executive order. As reported by NPR in January, Senior U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour described the order as “blatantly unconstitutional” during an early hearing, stating “I’ve been on the bench for four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is.”
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” According to Harvard Law School professor Gerald Neuman, as reported by Harvard Law Today, “The argument is either a crazy theory or dishonest interpretation of the Constitution.”
Supreme Court’s June Ruling Creates New Legal Landscape
Thursday’s ruling comes in the wake of a significant Supreme Court decision on June 27 that limited the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. According to NPR, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision sided with the Trump administration’s request to limit universal injunctions, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing that such injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given them.”
However, as reported by SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court “left open the prospect of additional litigation in the lower courts” and specifically preserved “the possibility of class action litigation to challenge the order on behalf of groups of plaintiffs.” According to CNN, while the court said district court judges’ rulings cannot block a president’s order nationwide, “it did leave intact the ability of plaintiffs to get broad relief through class action lawsuits.”
Judge Laplante’s decision directly utilized this remaining avenue. According to Al Jazeera, Laplante announced that “a class-action lawsuit representing all children affected by Trump’s order could proceed,” adding that his decision was “not a close call.”
Constitutional Scholars Weigh In
Legal experts across the political spectrum have largely agreed that birthright citizenship is clearly protected by the Constitution. According to the American Immigration Council, “With very few exceptions, everyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen by birth, whether the child’s parents are citizens, legal immigrants, or undocumented immigrants.”
The Congressional Research Service’s Constitution Annotated notes that the Supreme Court has held since 1898 that “a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship,” referencing the landmark United States v. Wong Kim Ark case.
According to Harvard Law School, the Wong Kim Ark case “explicitly discussed whether the rule would include the Chinese, and it was clearly decided that, yes, it would apply to people of any race.” Professor Neuman explained that the only traditional exceptions involve “foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity” and are “not subject to our laws.”
Implementation Challenges and Next Steps
The Trump administration faces significant challenges in implementing the order even if it survives legal challenges. According to The Washington Post, Attorney General Pam Bondi stated at a June 27 press conference that implementation would be discussed “after the litigation,” declining to provide specifics about enforcement.
Justice Department officials told a federal judge last week they plan to begin enforcing Trump’s birthright citizenship order as early as July 27, according to Fox News, in recognition of a 30-day stay included in the Supreme Court’s June ruling.
According to FactCheck.org, the injunctions previously granted by district judges likely only provided relief to the individuals, organizations and 22 states who were part of those cases. However, Thursday’s class-action certification significantly broadens the scope of protection.
Political and Social Implications
The birthright citizenship debate touches on fundamental questions of American identity and constitutional interpretation. According to the American Immigration Council, eliminating birthright citizenship would actually increase the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., as children born here would themselves become undocumented.
Critics of the executive order argue it contradicts established law and American values. According to Democracy Docket, legal experts noted that the ruling will have a cascading effect on other legal challenges to Trump’s policies, with federal judges having issued at least 25 universal injunctions in challenges to Trump policies since January.
The Heritage Foundation and some conservative scholars have argued for a narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause. However, as reported by the National Constitution Center, most constitutional scholars maintain that the amendment’s intent and Supreme Court precedent clearly establish birthright citizenship for all children born on U.S. soil, with limited exceptions.
Looking Ahead
Judge Laplante paused his order for seven days to give the Trump administration time to appeal, according to CNN. The case is expected to eventually reach the Supreme Court, where the justices will likely address the constitutionality of the executive order itself.
According to Axios, White House spokesperson Andrew Fields stated that “The Trump Administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement.”
As reported by multiple sources, this legal battle represents just one front in the broader debate over immigration policy and constitutional interpretation that will likely continue throughout Trump’s presidency and beyond. The outcome will have profound implications for millions of children born in the United States and for the fundamental understanding of American citizenship itself.
