CONCORD, N.H. — A pivotal legal battle over President Donald Trump’s directive to terminate birthright citizenship is progressing toward review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A federal judge in New Hampshire has issued a ruling on Thursday that temporarily halts the enforcement of the president’s executive order, signed in January, aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born to parents without legal status anywhere in the United States.
The judge’s decision includes a preliminary injunction against the order and allows a seven-day window for an appeal, effectively putting a pause on its implementation.
The ruling from the district court judge follows shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions without addressing the fundamental issue of the order’s constitutional validity. However, the Supreme Court allowed the possibility for nationwide challenges to birthright citizenship to be obstructed.
Understanding Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship grants U.S. citizenship to individuals born within the country, including children born to undocumented migrants. This practice stems from the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, ratified soon after the Civil War, designed to ensure citizenship for Black individuals, including former slaves.
The amendment articulates, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
This principle was cemented three decades later when Wong Kim Ark, born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrants, was denied reentry after traveling abroad. His legal challenge led to a Supreme Court ruling affirming that citizenship by birth applies irrespective of parental legal status, barring specific exceptions such as offspring of foreign diplomats.
Trump’s Initiative to Challenge the Status Quo
President Trump’s January executive order aims to revoke citizenship for children born to individuals present in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. This action aligns with his stringent immigration policies and stems from the view that birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration.
Trump and his proponents focus on the amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” claiming it permits the U.S. to withhold citizenship rights from babies born to undocumented immigrants.
In contrast, multiple federal judges have overruled this interpretation, issuing injunctions that prevent the order’s enforcement. “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, and this case’s clarity is unprecedented,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour commented during a hearing in Seattle, deeming it “a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
Supreme Court’s Ambiguous Stance
While the Supreme Court’s ruling curtails individual judges from issuing broad injunctions, it was viewed as a win for the Trump administration. The administration praised this as a check against judges who might obstruct the president’s immigration agenda.
However, the justices did not resolve the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order and left room for class action lawsuits to continue challenging it.
Though the Supreme Court limited nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out that judges could potentially use other legal methods, such as class action proceedings, to achieve a similar impact.
Legal Proceedings in Various Stages
Amid ongoing legal disputes across district and appellate courts nationwide, New Hampshire District Court Judge Joseph Laplante’s decision adds another layer to the unfolding litigation against the president’s order.
Pending cases include lawsuits from over two dozen states and cities, immigration advocacy groups, and individuals directly affected.
A Maryland district court is reviewing the procedural steps to take following the Supreme Court’s guidance on injunctions. Meanwhile, attorneys general from New Jersey and other states contend that a nationwide halt to the order is justified under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, urging the federal government to suggest alternative solutions for the courts’ evaluation.
Boston College law professor Daniel Kanstroom, an expert in immigration law, believes the issue will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court. “The stakes in this case could not possibly be higher,” he remarked, underlining its implications for millions and its roots in the broader context of America’s immigration policies and historical constitutional amendments.