President Donald Trump's bold push to redefine birthright citizenship has hit a judicial wall. A federal judge in New Hampshire has stepped in to block this controversial policy on a national scale.
According to Daily Mail, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante certified a class action lawsuit on behalf of future children who would be impacted by Trump's executive order. This move comes just weeks after a significant Supreme Court victory for the president on the same issue.
Trump signed the order on January 20, upon returning to the White House, aiming to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents here unlawfully or on temporary status. Titled 'Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,' the policy sparked immediate legal challenges across multiple states.
Judge Laplante, appointed by George W. Bush, issued his order on Thursday with a seven-day stay for appeals. His decision to allow the plaintiffs to proceed as a class ensures another round of litigation over Trump's plan.
In his ruling, Laplante stated, "The preliminary injunction is just not a close call to the court." He argued that stripping citizenship would cause "irreparable harm," a point that deserves scrutiny but overlooks the broader question of policy overreach by unelected judges.
While the harm to individuals is a valid concern, this ruling sidesteps the will of a president elected to tackle immigration loopholes. The 14th Amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" offers room for interpretation, and Trump's administration has every right to challenge a long-standing policy that many see as outdated.
Earlier, the Supreme Court handed Trump a 6-3 victory, with all conservative justices supporting his executive order. This ruling limited federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, a practice Trump has long criticized as judicial overreach by liberal-leaning courts.
Speaking at the White House after that decision, Trump declared, "This really brings back the Constitution." Yet, one has to wonder if endless class action suits will simply replace injunctions as the new tool to thwart executive action.
The high court's decision did not settle the constitutional debate but allowed most states to begin enforcing the order. Now, with Laplante's class action certification, that progress hangs in a precarious balance.
The New Hampshire lawsuit, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, represents a pregnant woman from Honduras and a Brazilian father, among others. The Honduran plaintiff, due in October, wrote, "I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding," a heartfelt plea that tugs at emotion but dodges the legal crux.
Sentiment aside, the argument for automatic citizenship often ignores how it can incentivize unlawful entry, a concern at the heart of Trump's policy. The Brazilian plaintiff, whose child was born in March, claimed, "My baby has the right to citizenship," yet rights must be weighed against laws that govern a nation's borders.
These personal stories highlight real stakes, but they cannot override the need for a coherent immigration framework. Policies must prioritize the interests of American citizens first, even if the human cost feels heavy.
Legal battles over Trump's order are not confined to New Hampshire, as cases emerge in Washington and Maryland with similar class action ambitions. In Washington, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has requested briefs to clarify the Supreme Court's ruling.
Meanwhile, a Maryland plaintiff seeks to represent all affected by the policy, with a Wednesday deadline for legal arguments. These multiplying challenges suggest a judiciary eager to check executive power, often at the expense of voter-backed mandates.
Trump's order was set to take effect on July 27, but this latest judicial roadblock could delay implementation. As the fight drags on, it becomes clearer that the battle over birthright citizenship is less about law and more about who gets to define America's future.
