CONCORD, New Hampshire (Reuters) — A federal judge in New Hampshire on Thursday once again blocked former President Donald Trump’s administration from denying U.S. citizenship to certain babies born on American soil. The judge utilized an exception carved out in a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that curtails judges’ power to issue broad, nationwide injunctions.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante made the ruling during a court hearing in Concord after immigrant rights groups asked the court to grant class certification for their lawsuit. The case took aim at Trump’s executive order, issued on his return to office in January, which aims to limit automatic citizenship to babies born in the country unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
While the court’s decision is not the final word in this high-stakes legal contest, Laplante issued a temporary stay on his ruling for seven days to allow the administration to file an appeal. A Justice Department attorney at the hearing signaled that such an appeal is forthcoming. Laplante, appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush, gave preliminary approval for the plaintiffs to proceed as a class, which enabled him to reissue a nationwide order halting implementation of Trump’s controversial directive.
Lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had urged Laplante to act in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling, which limited the use of sweeping nationwide injunctions in three separate cases challenging Trump’s birthright policy. That decision, passed by a 6-3 vote, meant that in some areas, babies born to non-citizen, non-resident parents could be denied citizenship and face deportation. However, the justices included a crucial exception: nationwide relief could still be pursued through class actions representing a group of similarly affected individuals.
Judge Laplante, who had already deemed Trump’s order unconstitutional in a related case, stressed that granting this injunction was straightforward given the impending loss of citizenship rights for potentially thousands of children if the executive order took effect as scheduled on July 27. “That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” he stated during the hearing. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy praised the ruling, telling the press that the Supreme Court’s earlier decision had created “confusion, concern and fear” among immigrant families regarding the fate of their U.S.-born children. “This decision ensures protection for every child across the country from this unconstitutional, cruel, and unlawful executive order,” he said.
The White House quickly criticized the judge’s decision. Spokesperson Harrison Fields labeled the ruling “an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s clear order against universal relief.” He went on: “This judge’s decision disregards the rule of law by abusing class action certification procedures. The Trump administration will vigorously contest efforts by rogue district court judges seeking to obstruct policies President Trump was elected to implement.”
Under the disputed executive order, federal agencies would cease granting citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent holds U.S. citizenship or permanent resident status—also called a green card. Plaintiffs estimate that more than 150,000 newborns a year could be stripped of citizenship if the order is implemented nationwide.
Responding to concerns raised by 22 Democratic-led states and immigrant advocacy groups, multiple federal judges—including Laplante—issued injunctions earlier this year, arguing the policy likely violates the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. Those judges cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 Supreme Court case affirming that children born on U.S. soil are granted birthright citizenship irrespective of their parents’ immigration status.
Three judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state had imposed nationwide injunctions. Laplante’s initial ruling in February also halted the order but applied only to members of three immigrant rights organizations involved in that specific case. The Supreme Court decision that followed dealt exclusively with the three nationwide orders, directing lower courts to re-examine them due to a lack of judicial authority to impose what are termed “universal injunctions” affecting non-parties.
Although the Trump administration interpreted the June ruling as a legal triumph, federal judges have continued to issue broad rulings when they determine parts of the administration’s agenda violate U.S. law. Writing the majority opinion, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett clarified that plaintiffs could still obtain similar scope of relief by filing class actions that represent all similarly affected individuals—an exception that formed the crux of Laplante’s decision.
Capitalizing on this exception, immigrant rights organizations immediately filed two new proposed class actions on the same day the Supreme Court issued its ruling, including the case Judge Laplante addressed. Laplante, who had previously expressed unease about nationwide injunctions, remarked, “It’s a better process to narrow these decisions and not have judges create national policy.”
Describing class action litigation as relatively common, Laplante nonetheless acknowledged Justice Samuel Alito’s note in the Supreme Court decision cautioning judges to be “rigorous” in evaluating class certification. Still, Laplante affirmed that, “the Supreme Court suggested a class action is a better option.”
