On July 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. This ruling temporarily halts the administration’s efforts to redefine citizenship criteria under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The executive order, signed by President Trump upon his return to office in January 2025, sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. This policy would have affected an estimated 150,000 newborns annually. Judge Laplante’s decision underscores the potential “irreparable harm” that could result from enforcing the order, particularly the risk of rendering affected children stateless. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/judge-weigh-blocking-trump-birthright-citizenship-despite-supreme-court-ruling-2025-07-10/?utm_source=openai))
In his ruling, Judge Laplante certified a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of all children born in the U.S. after February 20, 2025, who could be impacted by the executive order. This certification allowed the judge to issue a nationwide injunction, despite a recent Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of such injunctions. The Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling restricted broad injunctions but permitted them in certified class-action cases, providing a legal pathway for this challenge. ([time.com](https://time.com/7301583/birthright-citizenship-class-action-judge/?utm_source=openai))
The Trump administration is expected to appeal the injunction. The White House criticized the ruling as an overreach, arguing that it circumvents the Supreme Court’s guidance on nationwide injunctions. Conversely, the ACLU hailed the decision as a vital safeguard against what they consider a cruel and unlawful policy. ([axios.com](https://www.axios.com/2025/07/10/judge-blocks-birthright-citizenship-order-scotus-ruling?utm_source=openai))
Legal experts widely regard the executive order as an attempt to undermine over a century of constitutional precedent affirming birthright citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. The 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark further solidified this interpretation. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/055227e3f219fd890c78cd21c89fd5d0?utm_source=openai))
Similar legal challenges are underway in other states, and the case may soon return to the Supreme Court for further review. The outcome of these proceedings will have significant implications for the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the future of birthright citizenship in the United States.
On July 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. This ruling temporarily halts the administration’s efforts to redefine citizenship criteria under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The executive order, signed by President Trump upon his return to office in January 2025, sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. This policy would have affected an estimated 150,000 newborns annually. Judge Laplante’s decision underscores the potential “irreparable harm” that could result from enforcing the order, particularly the risk of rendering affected children stateless. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/judge-weigh-blocking-trump-birthright-citizenship-despite-supreme-court-ruling-2025-07-10/?utm_source=openai))
In his ruling, Judge Laplante certified a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of all children born in the U.S. after February 20, 2025, who could be impacted by the executive order. This certification allowed the judge to issue a nationwide injunction, despite a recent Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of such injunctions. The Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling restricted broad injunctions but permitted them in certified class-action cases, providing a legal pathway for this challenge. ([time.com](https://time.com/7301583/birthright-citizenship-class-action-judge/?utm_source=openai))
The Trump administration is expected to appeal the injunction. The White House criticized the ruling as an overreach, arguing that it circumvents the Supreme Court’s guidance on nationwide injunctions. Conversely, the ACLU hailed the decision as a vital safeguard against what they consider a cruel and unlawful policy. ([axios.com](https://www.axios.com/2025/07/10/judge-blocks-birthright-citizenship-order-scotus-ruling?utm_source=openai))
Legal experts widely regard the executive order as an attempt to undermine over a century of constitutional precedent affirming birthright citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. The 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark further solidified this interpretation. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/055227e3f219fd890c78cd21c89fd5d0?utm_source=openai))
Similar legal challenges are underway in other states, and the case may soon return to the Supreme Court for further review. The outcome of these proceedings will have significant implications for the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the future of birthright citizenship in the United States.