Federal Judge Halts Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order in Nationwide Injunction After Court Clash

10 July 2025

REUTERS/Nathan Howard/File Photo

On July 10, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in Concord, New Hampshire, delivered a pivotal ruling suspending President Trump’s executive order intended to restrict birthright citizenship for those born on American soil, extending the block nationwide despite recent Supreme Court limits on broad injunctions. Laplante granted class action status to a lawsuit championed by the ACLU and immigrant rights groups, marking a decisive shift in legal strategy and paving the way for a sweeping prohibition on implementing the executive order across the country.

Judge Laplante underscored the fundamental right at stake citizenship itself affirming that its denial would cause “irreparable harm,” and emphasizing he saw no alternative but to issue a nationwide stop on enforcement. He granted the administration a seven-day window to appeal before his written opinion would follow by day’s end.

This ruling arrives shortly after the Supreme Court’s June 27 decision that effectively narrowed the scope of nationwide injunctions, permitting them only when plaintiffs have class-wide standing. The new method employed by Laplante certifying the case as a national class action demonstrates how lower courts may still check executive power within the adjusted legal framework.

Trump’s order, signed on January 20, would have barred automatic U.S. citizenship for children born to parents lacking status as citizens or lawful permanent residents. While it awaited challenge, the Supreme Court’s earlier procedural ruling had cleared the way for limited implementation in states without plaintiffs already involved in litigation.

Condé Nast Traveler.

With Judge Laplante’s ruling, the fate of birthright citizenship returns to the courts, even after Supreme Court deliberation. Lower courts have recently demonstrated readiness to explore alternative legal mechanisms like class actions and administrative procedure claims to maintain broad enforcement protections against executive overreach.

The court’s step is welcome news for immigrant rights groups, who argue that Automatic U.S. citizenship at birth is enshrined in the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and that Trump’s order conflicts with over a century of precedent following United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The plaintiffs insist denying citizenship without due process violates constitutional protections and imposes a dangerous precedent.

At the same time, Trump’s administration maintains that executive authority allows for a reinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause, a stance that has triggered multiple simultaneous lawsuits across jurisdictions. Although previous lawsuits in Washington, Massachusetts, and other states had secured preliminary injunctions, these were partially lifted following Supreme Court intervention.

Laplante’s ruling is positioned to become a flashpoint in the legal conversation surrounding executive authority and constitutional rights. It also signals that states permitting broad class-based litigation can continue to block federal policies nationwide, even under new Supreme Court constraints. The case is likely to escalate quickly back to the Supreme Court, which will face a sharper test: not whether nationwide injunctions are permissible but if the executive order itself violates constitutional protections.

As the Trump administration prepares its appeal, the nation confronts critical questions about the nature of citizenship, judicial authority, and executive power. Whether Laplante’s class action model becomes a blueprint for judicial resistance or is overturned by the Supreme Court, this case is poised to shape American immigration law for years to come.