On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, aiming to end jus soli (birthright citizenship) for children born on U.S. soil to unauthorized immigrants or non-residents. It sparked immediate legal backlash, invoking the 14th Amendment’s clear language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens…” .
Supreme Court Ruling & Legal Strategy
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that lower courts cannot issue universal nationwide injunctions to block executive actions. However, it explicitly left open other legal avenues, notably class-action suits, for achieving broader injunctions.
The New Hampshire Ruling
On July 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante (appointed by Bush) responded by:
-
Certifying a nationwide class-action, representing all current or future children affected.
-
Issuing a temporary nationwide injunction blocking the order.
-
Applying a seven-day stay, allowing the Justice Department time to appeal.
He emphasized that the harm—loss of U.S. citizenship—constitutes “irreparable harm”, and rejecting arguments for a narrower, state-by-state injunction.
Voices from the Case
-
Cody Wofsy of the ACLU hailed the injunction as a victory for protecting every child and the constitutional promise of citizenship.
-
Judge Laplante called the order “lawless, unconstitutional and cruel,” underscoring the gravity of stripping citizenship rights.
What This Means
Constitutional Enforcement
This ruling fortifies the 14th Amendment’s fundamental guarantee of birthright citizenship. Despite executive challenges, courts continue to require judicial due process, especially for decisions impacting the citizenship status of U.S.-born children.
Legal Precedent
This marks a pivotal test of the post-SCOTUS landscape under Trump v. CASA:
-
Courts can no longer issue blanket injunctions—but
-
They can halt policies via careful class-action cases.
Judge Laplante’s approach exemplifies how lower courts can still protect broad groups within constitutional guardrails.
Next Steps
-
DOJ now has seven days to appeal the decision.
-
Given the high stakes, it is likely to return to the Supreme Court—potentially this October.
Why It Matters
-
For families: Children born in the U.S. after Feb. 2025 now remain eligible for citizenship under this injunction.
-
For legal norms: It illustrates a strong checks-and-balances moment, preserving judicial review even over executive orders.
-
For national policy: Birthright citizenship remains a legal and symbolic cornerstone of U.S. identity.
Further Reading
-
Analysis of how the Supreme Court preserves mechanisms for national rulings post–Casa .
-
Historical grounding in Wong Kim Ark (1898), affirming birthright citizenship even for children of non-citizens.
Final Thoughts
Judge Laplante’s ruling is a landmark affirmation of constitutional protections. It shows how courts are navigating around limits on universal injunctions by embracing structured class-action processes—keeping birthright citizenship alive while setting the stage for likely Supreme Court review this fall.