Judge Blocks Trump’s Order to End Birthright Citizenship as Class-Action Lawsuit Advances

In the United States, a significant legal battle continues over the Trump administration’s controversial attempt to end birthright citizenship for certain U.S. residents. On July 10, 2025, a federal judge in New Hampshire, Judge Joseph LaPlante, issued a preliminary injunction—a temporary court order halting the implementation of the executive order—as a class-action lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s January order moves forward. This lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of immigrant parents and their children, challenges the legality and constitutionality of denying U.S. citizenship to babies born on American soil to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. The judge's decision to block the order included a seven-day stay, giving time for the government to appeal.

Birthright citizenship is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration argues that the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” allows the U.S. to withhold citizenship from children born to non-citizens residing in the country illegally or temporarily. This interpretation represents a dramatic departure from over a century of legal precedent in American immigration and constitutional law. The government claims previous interpretations have created a “perverse incentive” for illegal immigration, adversely affecting national sovereignty, security, and economic stability.

Don't Miss | How will Ending Birthright Citizenship affect Indian Americans?

Judge LaPlante, however, found these arguments unpersuasive, though not frivolous, and emphasized that denial of citizenship constitutes irreparable harm—a key legal threshold for granting an injunction. He stated that his ruling was “not a close call,” signaling the strength of the plaintiffs’ case. The class he certified includes all children likely to be affected by the executive order but is narrower than what the plaintiffs originally requested, which had also included the parents.

The case was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents, and their infants. One plaintiff, a woman from Honduras with a pending asylum application, is expecting her fourth child in October. She told the court her family fled to the U.S. to escape gang violence and that she fears her child could become a target for immigration enforcement or live a life in fear and hiding. Another plaintiff is a man from Brazil living in Florida with his wife for five years. Their baby, born in March, is at the center of their legal fight, and they are applying for lawful permanent residency based on family ties—his wife’s father is a U.S. citizen. He insisted, “My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States.”

You Might like this | Who are Anchor Babies?

This New Hampshire case is just one of many legal challenges emerging across the country. In Washington State, a related case is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges have asked for legal briefs on how a recent Supreme Court ruling affects lower court authority to issue universal injunctions. These are broad court orders that halt a policy nationwide, and while the Supreme Court ruling on June 27, 2025, limited their use, it left room for such injunctions through certain legal avenues. Plaintiffs quickly moved to adapt their legal strategy to remain in compliance with the high court’s new standards.

In Maryland, another class-action lawsuit is taking shape, supported by the nonprofit immigrant rights organization CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate). The presiding judge has set a July 15, 2025, deadline for written legal arguments, as she considers issuing another injunction. Ama Frimpong, CASA’s legal director, reassured concerned families, urging calm and emphasizing that multiple legal paths are still being pursued to ensure the executive order is ultimately overturned. “No one has to move states right this instant,” she said. “There’s different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.”

The White House, however, continues to defend the executive order. Spokesperson Harrison Fields criticized the court’s action, accusing “rogue district court judges” of undermining the President’s immigration agenda and vowed to challenge the injunction vigorously. The administration insists that restricting birthright citizenship is a necessary step in addressing illegal immigration and restoring lawful control over U.S. borders.

As the legal battles unfold, tens of thousands of babies and their families may be impacted by the potential policy shift. The plaintiffs’ legal team warned in court filings that without an immediate injunction, those affected could face a wide range of legal and personal harms within just weeks. The broader legal and political implications are likely to define debates around immigration, constitutional rights, and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment for years to come.

 Explore more on UPSC Content

Click for Daily Quotes:

Stay updated with the latest news by joining our Telegram channel – The PRESS Pad , and follow us on Instagram and X.