Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Despite Supreme Court Ruling

July 10, 2025 — Washington, D.C.

In a significant legal development, a federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction blocking former President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship in the United States. The decision comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to limit the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts, raising fresh questions about judicial authority, constitutional rights, and immigration policy.

🔍 What Was Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order?

Trump's executive order, signed earlier this year, sought to deny U.S. citizenship to children born on American soilunless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The controversial directive directly challenged the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to all individuals born in the United States, regardless of parental immigration status.

⚖️ Federal Judge Issues Nationwide Block

U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the order. In his ruling, Judge Laplante emphasized that the plaintiffs—representing immigrant families across the country—faced irreparable harm under the policy. He further asserted that the case met the legal criteria to proceed as a class-action lawsuit, allowing the injunction to apply nationwide despite the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against broad court orders.

The judge noted that denying birthright citizenship contradicts over a century of legal precedent and could render thousands of children stateless—an outcome he called “unconstitutional and unconscionable.”

📜 The Constitutional Clash: 14th Amendment vs. Executive Power

At the core of the legal battle is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This has been interpreted since 1898 to include nearly all children born on U.S. soil.

Critics of Trump’s policy argue that any executive attempt to limit this constitutional guarantee amounts to executive overreach, while supporters claim the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” leaves room for narrower interpretations.

🚨 Supreme Court Ruling Sparks Legal Gray Area

The ruling arrives on the heels of a Supreme Court decision that sought to curtail the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, limiting relief to the specific plaintiffs involved. However, the court carved out an exception for certified class actions, which Judge Laplante invoked in allowing his order to affect all impacted families across the U.S.

This legal workaround has now positioned the class-action mechanism as a critical tool for civil rights litigators challenging sweeping federal policies.

🗣️ National Response and What Comes Next

Legal experts, civil rights organizations, and immigration advocates have praised the ruling as a victory for constitutional rights and immigrant families. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign and legal representatives have vowed to appeal, arguing the decision defies both the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s recent guidance.

The case is expected to return to appellate courts and could even land back before the Supreme Court, potentially shaping the future of birthright citizenship in America.