A federal judge has issued a new nationwide block on President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship.
The order, signed on January 20th, prohibits the federal government from recognising U.S. citizenship for children born in the country to parents who are in the United States either unlawfully or temporarily.
CNN reported that U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante granted a preliminary injunction on Thursday in New Hampshire. This decision came as part of a class action lawsuit and follows a June 27th US Supreme Court ruling that restricted the ability of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions unless the case is filed as a class action.
Judge Certifies Nationwide Class for Affected Individuals
Judge Laplante certified a nationwide class consisting of individuals who would be denied citizenship under the executive order. “The preliminary injunction is just not a close call to the court,” Laplante said during the hearing.
“The deprivation of US citizenship and an abrupt change of policy that was longstanding … that’s irreparable harm.”
The class does not include the parents of the affected children. It consists solely of current and future children impacted by the policy. Reports cite that the plaintiffs include a Honduran asylum-seeker known as “Barbara,” who resides in New Hampshire and is expecting a child in October, and “Mark,” a Brazilian man seeking lawful permanent status whose wife gave birth in March while not lawfully present in the US.
Legal Impact and Background of Executive Order
Trump’s order, titled PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, states that the federal government will no longer issue citizenship documentation to children born on US soil unless at least one parent is either a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. The policy represents a departure from over a century of legal precedent based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
In an earlier ruling, Laplante wrote, “The Executive Order contradicts the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the century-old untouched precedent that interprets it.”
Other federal judges have issued similar rulings, also declaring the order unconstitutional, though those rulings have led to appeals from the Trump administration and subsequent Supreme Court review.
Court Decision Follows Supreme Court Guidance
Laplante’s decision aligns with a legal pathway still allowed under the recent Supreme Court decision, which restricted nationwide injunctions by individual judges unless issued through class certification. “U.S. citizenship is the greatest privilege that exists in the world,” Laplante stated, adding that the harm posed by the order is ongoing and significant.
The judge, appointed by former President George W. Bush, said the injunction would be paused for several days to allow the Trump administration to appeal the ruling.
Cody Wofsy, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union and part of the legal team challenging the executive order, said, “No court in the country has agreed with the administration on the underlying constitutional question. Every court has said that this order is unconstitutional, and so we expect to prevail on that question.”
Future Proceedings and Legal Consequences
The Supreme Court has ruled that enforcement of the executive order cannot begin until 30 days after its June 27 decision. However, the government is permitted to begin drafting implementation guidelines during that period.
Courts around the country are now reconsidering their previous decisions regarding the order, and more hearings are expected in the coming weeks. While those proceedings continue, it is unclear whether any existing nationwide injunctions will be modified before the enforcement date approaches.
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued in court filings that children born under the restrictions of the executive order would face long-term obstacles, including possible statelessness and ineligibility for rights and benefits such as voting, jury service, federal employment, and federal assistance programs.
The ruling from New Hampshire may play a significant role in shaping the broader legal response to the executive order as similar cases progress through the courts.
