Federal Judge Issues New Block on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
This ruling is significant as it leverages a class-action lawsuit, a legal avenue left open by a recent Supreme Court decision on June 27, 2025, which had curbed the power of lower courts.
Photo: Drew Angerer/AFP via CNN
Overview
Date: July 10, 2025
Topic: Federal Judge Issues Nationwide Block on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order via Class Action
Summary: A federal judge in New Hampshire, Joseph Laplante, issued a new nationwide block on July 10, 2025, against President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. This ruling is significant as it leverages a class-action lawsuit, a legal avenue left open by a recent Supreme Court decision on June 27, 2025, which had curbed the power of lower courts to issue broad nationwide injunctions. The judge’s preliminary injunction prevents the enforcement of Trump’s January 20, 2025, order, which aims to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless one parent is a citizen or permanent resident, effectively protecting all children born on or after February 20, 2025, from being denied citizenship. The ruling is paused for seven days to allow the administration to appeal.
Sources
NBC News - Judge blocks Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship
The Washington Post - Federal judge places new block on Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship
The Wall Street Journal - Judge Places New Block on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
Key Points
Nationwide Block through Class Action: All articles report that U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante issued a new nationwide block on President Trump’s executive order, specifically by certifying a class-action lawsuit. This legal strategy is highlighted as a direct response to a Supreme Court ruling that limited the ability of lower courts to issue broad nationwide injunctions.
Supreme Court’s Prior Ruling: The articles consistently refer to the Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling, which, while curbing general nationwide injunctions, explicitly left open class-action lawsuits as a viable avenue for seeking widespread relief. The Supreme Court had also temporarily paused the executive order’s enforcement until July 27, allowing time for further legal challenges.
Judge Laplante’s Rationale: Judge Laplante, a George W. Bush appointee, emphasized that denying birthright citizenship constitutes “irreparable harm” and that U.S. citizenship is “the greatest privilege that exists in the world.” He acknowledged his previous reservations about issuing nationwide injunctions but noted that the Supreme Court’s decision suggested class actions as a more appropriate vehicle for such broad relief.
Scope of the Injunction: The preliminary injunction applies to all current and future persons born on or after February 20, 2025, who would be affected by the executive order.
Executive Order’s Objective: President Trump’s executive order, signed on January 20, 2025, aims to limit birthright citizenship to children with at least one U.S. citizen or permanent resident parent, thereby excluding children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, temporary visitors, tourists, or students whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents.
Constitutional Basis of Challenge: The order is widely viewed as unconstitutional, conflicting with the established interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Opponents argue it would create a “permanent, multigenerational subclass.”
Temporary Stay for Appeal: Judge Laplante stayed his order for seven days, providing the Trump administration time to appeal the decision.
ACLU’s Central Role: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is identified as the lead organization that brought this class-action lawsuit and celebrated the ruling as a significant victory for immigrant rights.
Unique Highlights
NBC News specifies the exact comprehensive language used by Judge Laplante in his written order for certifying the class, detailing the specific categories of individuals covered by the injunction. It also quotes Abigail Jackson, White House spokesperson, on the administration’s commitment to “lawfully implementing” the order and references Attorney General Pam Bondi’s previous statement on July 2, calling a judge a “rogue district court judge” for attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Washington Post quotes U.S. Rep. Mike Collins (R-Georgia) criticizing the judge, stating, “No one elected judges to make nationwide policy. This needs to end.” It also estimates that Trump’s order could affect “more than 150,000 a year” and includes a detailed sidebar on Trump’s broader immigration policies in his second term, such as increased ICE arrests, deployment of federal personnel from other agencies, and sending migrants to Guantánamo Bay Naval Base. It notes that “22 states, plus D.C. and San Francisco, have sued over Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.”
The Wall Street Journal details that the New Hampshire class-action was filed by three immigrants: “a pregnant woman, a woman who gave birth in April and the father of a baby born in March.” It also presents the government’s argument that the 14th Amendment was intended for formerly enslaved Black Americans, not for children of illegal immigrants or temporary visitors. It quotes White House spokesman Harrison Fields, who called the decision “an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s clear order against universal relief.”
CNN provides specific details about the proposed class representatives in the ACLU lawsuit, including a Honduran asylum-seeker (“Barbara”) and a Brazilian man (“Mark”). It elaborates on the “numerous obstacles” children would face if denied citizenship, such as “stigma and potential statelessness” and loss of various rights and eligibility for federal programs. The article also highlights Judge Laplante’s comment on the urgency of the litigation, noting that there was “no time for discovery.” Furthermore, it includes a detailed discussion of the Supreme Court justices' differing opinions on how class-action litigation might be used to achieve broad injunctions, quoting Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
The New York Times notes that the executive order would affect children born to “academics in the United States on student visas.” It quotes directly from the ACLU lawsuit, emphasizing the “promise that their children can achieve their full potential as Americans” and that without birthright citizenship, dreams of becoming professionals or even president would be “foreclosed.” It also highlights that “many constitutional law experts believe that the order is unconstitutional on its face” and references the Supreme Court’s liberal members' dissent, warning of a “chaotic legal patchwork” and an “endlessly confusing environment” if individual lawsuits were required for each child’s citizenship.
Contrasting Details
Scope of Class Certification (Initial ACLU Request vs. Judge’s Ruling): The American Civil Liberties Union initially sought to certify a class that included both the children affected by Trump’s order and their parents. However, Judge Laplante narrowed his order to cover only the children. While this was a difference from the initial request, The Washington Post notes that ACLU’s lead attorney Cody Wofsy stated this distinction would have “no practical impact on the judge’s ruling.” CNN further explains that the judge’s decision to exclude parents from the class was partly to avoid potential issues with federal rules regarding class certification due to varied adult immigration situations, allowing the case to proceed without time-consuming discovery.
Interpretation of Supreme Court’s Ruling on Nationwide Injunctions: There is a clear contrast in how the Trump administration and the plaintiffs/judge interpret the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. The administration, through statements from Attorney General Pam Bondi (NBC News) and White House spokesman Harrison Fields (The Wall Street Journal), views the broad injunction, even through a class action, as an “unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s clear order against universal relief.” Conversely, Judge Laplante and the ACLU interpret the Supreme Court’s ruling as explicitly leaving class actions as a legitimate and “better option” for achieving nationwide relief, thus complying with the Supreme Court’s guidance. CNN further details this divergence by highlighting the differing views among Supreme Court justices themselves, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh appearing open to class actions achieving “the functional equivalent of a universal injunction,” while Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas warned against “lax enforcement” of class certification requirements as a potential “significant loophole.”
The Newsie Project uses AI to summarize, compare, and contrast the reporting of the major US and world online news sources.
This is an evolving project. Tools, approaches, and output formats will change over time. The Newsie Project does not attempt to provide a definitive capsule of any news story. While the incidence of errors in these summaries is low, and I attempt to spot-check details, AI tools can hallucinate. Please click through and read the articles for details (some may be paywalled).