In a significant legal development on Thursday, a U.S. federal judge issued a new nationwide injunction that temporarily halts the enforcement of  President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order seeking to revoke birthright citizenship. This move underscores an ongoing legal battle over the constitutional rights of children born on U.S. soil to immigrant parents.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante of New Hampshire, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, delivered the ruling from the bench during a high-stakes hearing. He sided with immigration rights advocates who had filed a class action lawsuit, successfully arguing that Trump’s executive action, issued on the first day of his campaign return, posed a grave constitutional threat to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Background of the Case

Trump’s executive order aimed to end automatic U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or individuals without lawful status. His administration claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” had been misinterpreted for over a century. Trump’s legal team contended that the clause was never intended to cover children of undocumented parents.

However, federal courts across the country have consistently disagreed with that interpretation. Judge Laplante, like several of his peers, rejected the administration’s arguments, stating in an earlier ruling that the order “contradicts the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the century-old untouched precedent that interprets it.”

A Shift from Nationwide Injunctions to Class Action

Laplante’s ruling carries special significance because it comes in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision that limited the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court suggested that nationwide class action lawsuits, rather than sweeping injunctions, might be a more appropriate tool for addressing broad constitutional questions.

During Thursday’s proceedings, Laplante referenced this guidance. “I’m the judge who wasn’t comfortable with issuing a nationwide injunction. Class action is different,” he said. “The Supreme Court suggested class action is a better option.”

By certifying a nationwide class of individuals directly affected by Trump’s order—namely, the children who would be denied citizenship—the court was able to extend its protective reach across all 50 states while staying within constitutional limits. The class, as defined by Laplante, includes both unborn and born children who would have been impacted by the order. Notably, the class does not extend to their parents, due to legal complexities surrounding the diversity of immigration statuses among adult plaintiffs.

Irreparable Harm and Constitutional Stakes

Judge Laplante emphasized the seriousness of the constitutional issues at stake. “The deprivation of U.S. citizenship and an abrupt change of a long-standing policy—that’s irreparable harm,” he declared. “U.S. citizenship is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”

Laplante’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction indefinitely blocks enforcement of the executive order against the class of children. He has also allowed a short pause in his ruling to give the federal government an opportunity to appeal the decision if it chooses to do so.

Immigration attorneys had asked the court to take urgent action, fearing that the executive order could be enforced at any moment, especially against pregnant asylum-seekers or undocumented parents already in the U.S.

DOJ Pushback and Legal Technicalities

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), represented by attorney Eric Hamilton, objected to certifying a class that included the parents. Hamilton argued that including adults with vastly different immigration circumstances might violate the federal rules for class certification. He also requested time for discovery—an extended fact-finding process that would help determine the makeup of the potential class.

But Judge Laplante disagreed, pointing out the urgency of the matter. “You’re right, ordinarily we’d conduct discovery before granting class certification,” he acknowledged. “There’s no time for discovery.” With babies at risk of being born without recognized citizenship, the court felt a delay could result in irreversible harm.

Real-Life Stories Behind the Lawsuit

The class action lawsuit was built around the experiences of real individuals. Among the proposed class representatives were “Barbara,” a Honduran asylum-seeker currently living in New Hampshire and expecting a baby in October, and “Mark,” a Brazilian man seeking lawful permanent residency whose wife—undocumented—recently gave birth to a child in the United States.

Attorneys argued that the children of people like Barbara and Mark would suffer significant harm if they were denied U.S. citizenship at birth. The legal complaint highlighted possible consequences such as statelessness, disenfranchisement, ineligibility for federal programs, and the risk of deportation to countries they may have never even visited.

“If the Order is left in place,” their lawyers wrote, “those children will face numerous obstacles to life in the United States, including stigma and potential statelessness… and potential arrest, detention, and deportation.”

Wider Legal and Political Implications

This latest ruling is expected to serve as a critical bulwark against Trump’s executive order, especially as other federal courts revisit earlier rulings in light of the Supreme Court’s recent stance on injunctions. With multiple lower courts having already declared the order unconstitutional, the issue appears headed for a broader showdown in the higher courts, possibly returning to the Supreme Court in the near future.

Cody Wofsy, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a key figure behind the lawsuit, stated: “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.”

Wofsy also highlighted the importance of Thursday’s hearing in determining how to procedurally protect every child affected by the policy. “The issue before the court on Thursday is ultimately just: procedurally, how are we going to ensure that every single child is protected?”

Looking Ahead

While the preliminary injunction is a victory for immigration advocates and constitutional rights groups, it remains a temporary solution. The legal battle over birthright citizenship is far from over and will likely continue to unfold through appeals, possibly culminating in a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, Judge Laplante’s decision has reassured thousands of families that their U.S.-born children will not be stripped of the rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment—at least for now.

As the political climate around immigration policy continues to heat up ahead of the 2024 election cycle, legal experts are keeping a close watch on how this case evolves. The stakes are high, not just for the children born on American soil, but for the very interpretation of one of the Constitution’s most fundamental principles: that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.