Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Despite Supreme Court’s Prior Ruling
10 July 2025 | Concord, New Hampshire — In a significant legal rebuke, a federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at ending automatic birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants on American soil. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, marks a major setback for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, reigniting debate over the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment and the limits of presidential power.
Judge Laplante’s decision comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court restricted the use of nationwide injunctions by federal courts. However, in a deft legal manoeuvre, Laplante certified the plaintiffs in the case as a nationwide class, thereby extending protection across the country and sidestepping the Supreme Court’s recent limitations on universal injunctions.
 |
Trump’s Birthright Citizenship |
Click here New offer
Background: Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship
President Trump, upon returning to office for a second term in January 2025, wasted no time in reissuing an executive order targeting birthright citizenship. The directive, signed on Inauguration Day, declared that children born in the United States to non-citizen, undocumented parents would no longer be granted automatic citizenship.
The administration justified the move as an effort to combat “birth tourism” and reduce what it described as systemic exploitation of the immigration system. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields defended the measure as “restorative constitutionalism,” claiming it aligned more closely with the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Legal scholars, immigrant rights groups, and civil liberties organisations vehemently disagreed, calling the order an unconstitutional overreach. Within hours of the order’s announcement, multiple lawsuits were filed across the country, challenging the executive’s authority to redefine a constitutional guarantee.
The Legal Challenge: Barbara v. Trump
The case that ultimately led to Thursday’s ruling—Barbara v. Trump—was filed in New Hampshire by several advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on behalf of U.S.-born children and expectant mothers at risk of being denied citizenship. The plaintiffs argued that the order violated both historical precedent and constitutional protections under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Judge Laplante agreed, stating unequivocally that the order posed an “immediate, irreparable harm” to affected individuals and defied binding precedent set in the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which upheld the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil.
“This court cannot permit a presidential order to eviscerate a constitutional right that has been recognised for more than a century,” Laplante wrote in his opinion. “Citizenship by birth on American soil is not a privilege granted at the whim of the executive but a constitutional guarantee.”
The ruling also delivered a pointed reminder of judicial independence, asserting that constitutional interpretation is the domain of the courts—not the presidency.
Class Action Strategy: Navigating Supreme Court Constraints
The Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA limited the ability of district courts to issue broad, universal injunctions. In response, attorneys for the plaintiffs in Barbara v. Trump pursued class action certification, ensuring the court’s ruling would apply nationwide to all individuals similarly situated.
Judge Laplante found that the plaintiffs met the criteria for class certification, allowing the injunction to shield not only the named plaintiffs but all affected children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents.
This strategy—praised by constitutional experts as both legally astute and urgently necessary—preserved the reach of the court’s protection without violating the Supreme Court’s precedent.
Reaction from Civil Rights Groups and Legal Experts
The decision was hailed as a major victory by immigrant advocacy groups and constitutional scholars.
“This ruling protects every child born in America from the consequences of an unlawful and cruel executive order,” said Cody Wofsy of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.
Rosa Delgado, an organiser with United We Dream, called the judgement a “powerful reaffirmation of constitutional values.”
“The administration tried to rewrite history and deny us our rights—but today, the courts said no,” she added.
Legal analysts also praised the clarity and firmness of Judge Laplante’s language, noting that the ruling not only blocks the executive order but affirms judicial authority to check presidential overreach.
The Administration Responds
In a defiant statement, the Trump administration criticised the ruling as “an activist court’s misreading of history and the Constitution.” Press Secretary Laura Anders stated that the administration intends to appeal the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and, if necessary, escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
White House officials accused the judge of circumventing the high court’s authority and pledged to continue fighting to “restore sanity to citizenship policy.”
“This is not the end. The American people will have the final say,” said former President Trump during a campaign stop in Florida. “We are defending the nation’s values, not undermining them.”
Constitutional Roots and Legal Precedent
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Legal scholars broadly agree that the amendment’s drafters intended to secure citizenship for virtually all U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents’ status—save for limited exceptions such as the children of diplomats.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed this interpretation, stating that birth on U.S. soil confers citizenship even to the children of non-citizens.
Judge Laplante cited these decisions extensively, concluding that the executive order represented a direct conflict with established constitutional law.
“The administration’s interpretation is not merely flawed—it is dangerous,” wrote Laplante. “It invites arbitrary exclusion from the American identity.”
Wider Fallout: Political, Economic and Diplomatic Implications
Political Landscape
The ruling immediately altered the dynamics of the 2025 presidential election. Vice President Kamala Harris, running as the Democratic frontrunner, applauded the court’s decision, calling it “a victory for democracy, decency, and the rule of law.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez echoed similar sentiments, vowing to codify birthright citizenship protections through legislation should Democrats win control of Congress.
Polling data released hours after the ruling showed that 58% of Americans opposed the executive order, while 35% supported it. Among independent voters, opposition surged to over 65%, suggesting the issue could influence swing states in November.
Corporate and Diplomatic Concerns
The order had drawn condemnation from over 300 corporations, particularly in the tech and healthcare industries, which warned it would have disrupted labour pipelines and undermined the country’s reputation as a destination for global talent.
International leaders, including Canadian Prime Minister Émilie Fournier and German Chancellor Markus Brandt, had also expressed concern over the policy, with the United Nations Human Rights Council warning that its implementation would have led to widespread statelessness in violation of international law.
Grassroots Mobilisation
Protests against the executive order had already been underway in cities across the United States. Following the ruling, celebratory rallies erupted in major metropolitan areas including New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.
Civil rights groups vowed to continue their vigilance, warning that similar attempts to undermine constitutional rights could re-emerge in other forms.
What Comes Next?
Although the injunction is a substantial blow to the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, the legal fight is far from over. The Justice Department has seven days to file an emergency appeal, and observers expect the issue to ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court in its upcoming term.
If the First Circuit upholds Laplante’s injunction, it will likely delay any further attempt to enforce the executive order until after the 2025 election, potentially rendering the issue moot depending on the outcome.
For now, children born on American soil—regardless of the citizenship status of their parents—retain their constitutional right to be recognised as U.S. citizens at birth.
Conclusion: A Landmark Defence of Constitutional Citizenship
Judge Joseph Laplante’s ruling is not merely a procedural halt to a controversial executive order. It is a sweeping constitutional affirmation—one that reinforces the role of the judiciary as a bulwark against overreach and underscores the enduring power of the Fourteenth Amendment.
At a moment when the definition of American citizenship stood at risk of political reengineering, the court has spoken clearly: the Constitution—not any president—defines who belongs.
As the appeals process unfolds and the political campaign intensifies, the nation remains on edge, watching to see whether this foundational right will endure as promised—“equal and undivided”—under the law.