Judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order, certifies class action

A federal judge in New Hampshire on Thursday placed a nationwide block on President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, saying he will certify a class-action lawsuit that includes all children who would be affected by the ban.

It’s the newest blockade against Mr. Trump’s immigration policy looking to challenge the interpretation of birthright citizenship under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

“The court hereby finds that Class Petitioners have demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits of their claims; that Class Petitioners are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the order is not granted; that the potential harm to the class petitioners if the order is not granted outweighs the potential harm to Respondents if the order is granted; and that the issuance of this order is in the public interest,” reads a brief order from U.S. District Court Judge Joseph N. Laplante.

The judge, a George W. Bush appointee, gave the government a seven-day delay for it to appeal to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ruling is expected to send the birthright citizenship fight back to the Supreme Court relatively soon.

The class approved in New Hampshire is slightly narrower than that sought by the plaintiffs, who wanted to include parents, but the challengers said that wouldn’t make a material difference.

They marked the decision as a major win following the Supreme Court’s June decision to stop lower court judges’ increasing tactic of issuing universal injunctions to halt policies. A universal injunction — also called a nationwide injunction — blocks a policy across the country, not just against the parties involved in the lawsuit.

“This ruling is a huge victory and will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, which argued the case.

“We are fighting to ensure President Trump doesn’t trample on the citizenship rights of one single child,” he said.

On the final day of the Supreme Court’s 2024-25 term, the justices in a 6-3 ruling said lower court judges issuing nationwide injunctions likely run afoul of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The case was over Mr. Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship.

But the question that came to the court focused on the authority of district court judges to block nationwide policies after a district court judge issued a nationwide halt to the birthright citizenship order.

In the majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, said challengers could file class actions as a way to contest executive policies and receive universal relief.

Hours after the high court’s decision, the ACLU filed its class-action suit, representing a pregnant woman and other families who had children born since the president signed the birthright citizenship order.

They challenged the order as being unconstitutional.

The preliminary injunction will block the order from taking effect while the litigation continues on the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship order.

The case is among numerous lawsuits challenging Mr. Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily.

The Trump administration says the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century.

“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case.

Judge Laplante, who had issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said while he didn’t consider the government’s arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call” and that deprivation of U.S. citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.

“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” the judge said. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”

White House spokesman Harrison Fields accused Judge Laplante of “abusing class action procedures.”

“The Trump administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement,” he said in a statement.

Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Article III Project, said he expects the Trump administration to quickly appeal.

“That will happen in relatively short order because the government has the right to ask to get the injunction lifted quickly,” Mr. Chamberlain said. “And if it doesn’t go the way of the government, we’ll almost certainly see something from the Supreme Court.”

The case is Barbara v. Donald J. Trump.

• This article is based in part on wire service reports.