Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order After Supreme Court Ruling

District Judge Joseph Laplante announced his decision after an hour-long hearing and said a written order will follow.

President Donald Trump listens as African Leaders deliver remarks during a multilateral lunch in the State Dining Room of the White House on July 9, 2025. Win McNamee/Getty Images

A federal judge on July 10 barred the Trump administration from enforcing the president’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, coming weeks after the Supreme Court restricted the capacity of judges to issue nationwide injunctions.

District Judge Joseph Laplante of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire announced his decision after an hour-long hearing and said a written order will follow. The order will include a seven-day stay to allow for appeal, he said.

“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” he said in court, according to reporters in the courtroom, referring to U.S. citizenship. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”

President Donald Trump in January issued the order ending automatic birthright citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are illegal immigrants. Multiple federal judges have issued injunctions against the order since it was issued, but the Supreme Court invalidated those previous court orders by ruling that lower courts cannot issue sweeping orders that block orders nationwide.

Laplante addressed the Supreme Court’s order, saying in the July 10 hearing that, previously, he “was the judge who wasn’t comfortable with issuing a nationwide injunction” and that “class action is different.” He noted that his interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling suggested that “class action is a better option,” it was reported.

At issue is the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The ruling is a response to a lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other plaintiffs, arguing that the executive order violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment and runs afoul of decades of jurisprudence over how to handle birthright citizenship.

But lawyers for the Trump administration have argued that under that text, the United States can deny citizenship to children born of illegal immigrant women because of the line “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

“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 said in court papers filed earlier this year, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration.

“The Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to ... the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws.”

The Trump administration and the president himself have argued that the 14th Amendment citizenship clause pertained to former black slaves soon after the Civil War, when the amendment was ratified.

Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the United States to Chinese parents, was refused reentry to the country after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents’ legal status.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents, and their infants. It is among numerous cases challenging Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the United States illegally or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU and others.

In its first complaint, filed in January, the ACLU wrote for the plaintiffs that “the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically enshrined this principle in our Constitution’s text to ensure that no one—not even the President—could deny children born in America their rightful place as citizens.”

“They did so with full knowledge and intent that this would protect the children of immigrants, including those facing discrimination and exclusion,” lawyers for the group said.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, although the nine justices did not rule on the merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

With the decision, the birthright citizenship cases were returned to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to amend their orders to comply with the high court ruling. Enforcement of the policy cannot take place for another 30 days, the Supreme Court wrote.

The ACLU resubmitted its complaint to the district court immediately after the Supreme Court’s ruling. Laplante’s bench ruling on July 10 was in response to the refiled lawsuit.

In a statement on July 10, the ACLU hailed Laplante’s order and said that it would “protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States” under its interpretation of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.