A federal judge on Thursday paused enforcement of former President Donald Trump’s order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, as opponents launched a fresh legal challenge following a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the power of individual judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
In a pivotal decision in late June, the high court’s conservative majority ruled that lower courts can no longer broadly block presidential policies, reshaping how such legal battles unfold.
Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship – a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution granting citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil – had previously been blocked by multiple judges issuing nationwide injunctions.
However, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that policies could still be blocked through broad class-action lawsuits against the government.
Trump’s opponents quickly filed new class-action suits seeking to block the executive order once again.
On Thursday, Judge Joseph Laplante of the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire granted class-action status to any child who could potentially be denied citizenship under Trump’s order. The judge also issued a preliminary injunction halting the policy while legal proceedings continue.
Laplante delayed the ruling’s implementation for seven days to allow the Trump administration time to appeal.
Cody Wofsy, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case, called the ruling a “huge victory” that “will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended.”
Trump’s executive order states that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically receive citizenship – a significant reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
His administration has argued that the 14th Amendment, passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, was intended to address the rights of formerly enslaved people, not the children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors to the U.S.
The Supreme Court rejected such a narrow interpretation in a landmark 1898 ruling.
The current high court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, avoided ruling last month on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order and addressed only the issue of nationwide injunctions.
However, it allowed the policy to take effect, with a delayed implementation until late July to permit further legal challenges.
Several lower courts, in their earlier rulings, had found that the executive order violated the Constitution.
