In a landmark ruling on Thursday, a federal judge in New Hampshire halted the enforcement of former President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship in the United States.
Judge Joseph Laplante of the U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the order, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal battle over immigration and citizenship rights. The judge approved a nationwide class action, covering children born to certain immigrant families who would be directly affected by the policy. However, he excluded the parents from the class due to differing legal circumstances.
This ruling comes shortly after a U.S. Supreme Court decision that restricted lower courts from issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions, while still allowing broad relief via class action lawsuits precisely the legal path taken in this case.
Describing the issue as urgent and constitutionally clear, Laplante stated, “The deprivation of U.S. citizenship and an abrupt change to a longstanding policy is irreparable harm.” He emphasized that U.S. citizenship remains “the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
Though Laplante temporarily paused the enforcement of his injunction to allow time for appeal, the decision is being viewed as a major legal barrier to the Trump-era policy.
The ruling was prompted by legal challenges from immigration rights advocates and groups like the **American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)**. The plaintiffs include individuals like a Honduran asylum-seeker expecting a baby in October and a Brazilian father whose wife gave birth earlier this year while residing in the U.S. unlawfully.
Their legal team argued that Trump’s policy, if allowed to proceed, would cause devastating consequences for the children involved—denying them automatic citizenship and exposing them to legal and social discrimination, including statelessness and limited access to essential rights and benefits.
Earlier in the year, Laplante had blocked the order’s enforcement against specific nonprofit members, but Thursday’s decision expands protection to a broader group. The judge clarified his position by stating, *“I wasn’t comfortable with a blanket nationwide injunction. Class action is different. The Supreme Court has indicated that it’s the preferred route.”*
Legal experts say the ruling strengthens the position of plaintiffs in similar cases across the country and adds pressure on the government to defend a policy widely deemed unconstitutional.
