A significant legal setback for the Trump administration’s immigration policy.
President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to eliminate birthright citizenship faces a major obstacle that may prevent its scheduled implementation on July 27.
In a pivotal ruling on Thursday, July 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, who was appointed by George W. Bush, granted a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration’s enforcement of the disputed order.
Moving beyond a conventional nationwide injunction — a practice that has faced recent limitations from the U.S. Supreme Court — Judge Laplante strategically certified the case as a class action, ensuring comprehensive coverage for all impacted individuals.
This legal strategy harmonizes with recent Supreme Court guidelines that have restricted nationwide injunctions except in cases involving class action litigation.
“The court sees no ambiguity here,” Laplante said during the hearing, according to CNN. He stressed that attempting to remove U.S. citizenship through executive action — without congressional involvement — represents irreparable damage. “U.S. citizenship is the greatest privilege that exists in the world,” he added.
The executive directive, named “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” received President Trump’s signature on January 20, 2025 — marking his first day back in the White House for his second term. The order declares that the federal government will cease recognizing U.S. citizenship for children born on American territory to parents who are either present illegally or hold temporary status.
Following a February ruling that protected a select group of plaintiffs connected to nonprofit organizations, Judge Laplante’s latest decision substantially broadens protection by establishing a nationwide class action encompassing all children born after February 20, 2025, who would be impacted by the executive order.
The judge’s 38-page ruling expressed strong criticism of the order’s sudden implementation, noting its adoption without public discourse or legislative endorsement. He contended that the directive threatens “a longstanding national policy rooted in the 14th Amendment.”
During court proceedings, government lawyers contested the inclusion of parents in the class action, citing variations in their legal standings. Judge Laplante concurred, limiting the class specifically to affected children.
The class action is represented by several individuals, including an expectant mother from Honduras living in New Hampshire and a Brazilian father whose child was born in the United States in March 2025.
ACLU legal representatives cautioned in their statement that implementing Trump’s order would strip these children of essential rights, including voting privileges, jury participation, access to federal benefits, and protection from potential detention or deportation to unfamiliar countries.
Laplante’s decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s pivotal 2012 ruling in Arizona v. United States, which established that immigration policy falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, recognized states’ immigration-related challenges while emphasizing their inability to implement policies that conflict with federal statutes.
In a recent development, the Supreme Court restricted district court judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions. However, the ruling specifically maintained the viability of class action litigation — the exact approach employed by Judge Laplante and the ACLU in this case.
“This preliminary injunction is both constitutionally sound and necessary to prevent irreversible harm,” said Cody Wofsy, an ACLU attorney, as quoted by CNN.
The Trump administration has been granted several days to submit an appeal. The Department of Justice might request a stay on the injunction during the case’s merit review. Given the existing divisions among federal courts, the matter will likely return to the Supreme Court’s docket in the upcoming months.
Simultaneously, courts across various jurisdictions are examining the constitutionality of President Trump’s birthright citizenship order. Several have already suspended its implementation and are now requiring parties to address the Supreme Court’s latest ruling.
Conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have previously expressed concerns about utilizing class actions to circumvent nationwide injunction restrictions. They cautioned that overly permissive standards in certifying class actions could potentially undermine the Court’s established legal principles.
At present, Judge Laplante’s ruling stands as a significant barrier to implementing President Trump’s directive. The future trajectory of this case remains uncertain, particularly given the Supreme Court’s existing deep divisions on this fundamental debate concerning citizenship rights and executive authority.
