Birthright Citizenship Order Temporarily Blocked Nationwide After Supreme Court Greenlight

Originally published June 27, 2025 | Updated July 10, 2025

July 10, 2025 — A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a major ruling temporarily blocking President Trump’s birthright citizenship order from going into effect nationwide. 

U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante granted class-action status to a lawsuit brought on behalf of immigrant families and their children, covering all U.S.-born children affected by the order. 

In the same ruling, he issued a preliminary nationwide injunction, finding that stripping citizenship rights from children born in the U.S. would cause “irreparable harm.” The order is paused for seven days to give the federal government time to appeal.This decision marks the first time a class-action case has successfully halted the executive order across the entire country. It comes just weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that judges cannot broadly block federal policies unless certain legal thresholds are met—such as class certification. Immigration advocates say the class-action ruling reopens a path to nationwide protections even under the Court’s new restrictions. The White House has not yet commented.

June 27: SCOTUS Allows Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order to Move Forward

In a 6-3 decision issued Friday, June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to begin implementing its executive order narrowing birthright citizenship, while limiting the power of lower courts to block federal policies nationwide.

The ruling does not determine whether the executive order itself is constitutional—an issue that continues to be litigated—but it clears the way for the administration to proceed in areas where the order has not yet been blocked.

It’s important to understand that the Supreme Court didn’t say whether the president’s order is legal or not. It said that courts can’t block the rule everywhere in the country—only for the people or states who are officially part of the lawsuits. That means the policy might go into effect in some places while the legal fight continues. 

If you’re an immigrant, especially if you’re in the U.S. on a visa and expecting a child, this ruling doesn’t immediately change your baby’s birthright citizenship status. But it does make the future more uncertain, and legal experts expect more lawsuits to decide what will happen next.

What the Court Decided

The case centered on federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington who had blocked President Trump’s January 2025 executive order. That order stated that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or people on temporary visas are not entitled to automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

In a majority opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court said lower courts had overstepped by applying those rulings nationwide, instead of limiting them to the specific plaintiffs involved. Barrett wrote that such broad injunctions—called “universal injunctions”—have little historical precedent in American law.

The justices said that while courts can still block policies for individuals and groups in a lawsuit, they generally can’t do so for everyone across the country unless certain conditions are met. The Court left open the possibility that broader relief may still be allowed in lawsuits brought by states.

Lower courts now have 30 days to reconsider their rulings and decide whether narrower, case-specific injunctions are appropriate. The Court did not weigh in on whether the executive order itself is constitutional.

Dissenting Views in the Supreme Court

The Court’s three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reading her dissent aloud from the bench, called the majority’s ruling “a travesty for the rule of law.” She warned that limiting nationwide injunctions would “hamstring” courts’ ability to prevent widespread harm and invited challengers to consider filing class action lawsuits instead. These types of lawsuits, if approved, can allow a single court ruling to protect a larger group of people with similar legal claims.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing separately, said the ruling posed “an existential threat to the rule of law,” arguing that it permits unconstitutional policies to affect anyone who hasn’t yet sued.

Constitutional Context: The 14th Amendment 

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” 

This clause has long been interpreted to confer citizenship to nearly all U.S.-born individuals, regardless of their parents’ immigration status (with narrow exceptions, such as children of diplomats)..That interpretation is backed by the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has never been overturned. P

President Trump’s executive order challenges that long-standing precedent, aiming to redefine the amendment’s application without a congressional or constitutional amendment. Trump has argued that the 14th Amendment was never meant to apply to children of undocumented immigrants or people in the U.S. on temporary visas. 

His administration claims that automatic citizenship in these cases encourages people to come to the U.S. just to have children, sometimes referred to as “birth tourism,” and that changing the interpretation would help reduce illegal immigration. Critics say this view ignores both legal precedent and the original intent of the amendment.

So far, every court that has ruled on the order has found it legally invalid, citing the 14th Amendment’s plain text and binding precedent.

What Happens Next

Though the ruling narrowed the reach of the current injunctions, Trump’s executive order cannot take effect until at least July 27, giving lower courts time to revise their decisions. Legal experts expect continued litigation, including:

• Efforts to reinstate narrower injunctions
• New lawsuits from individuals or states in jurisdictions where the order is not currently blocked
  Possible class actions seeking broader protection

The executive order remains blocked in New Hampshire due to a separate state-level ruling that was not part of the Supreme Court case.

“Even without a universal injunction, we will continue to litigate this case to ensure that every child born in the United States receives the citizenship that the 14th Amendment promises them, regardless of their parents’ immigration status,” said William Powell, an attorney for the plaintiffs in Maryland.

What You Should Know If You’re in the U.S. on a Visa

While Friday’s ruling does not alter the legal rights of children born to temporary visa holders at this time, it introduces uncertainty into an area of law that was previously settled. 

Families on nonimmigrant visas (such as H-1B, L-1, F-1, and TN) should be aware that:

• No final ruling has been made on whether the executive order is constitutional
• Birthright citizenship remains intact for now, but the legal question is unresolved
• Future births could be affected depending on how litigation unfolds

Immigration attorneys recommend documenting immigration status thoroughly and consulting legal counsel if birthright citizenship becomes relevant to your case or family.

“This ruling doesn’t eliminate protections—it just changes how they have to be fought for,” said Henry Lindepere, an immigration attorney and Senior Counsel at Manifest Law. “Previously, a lower court temporarily paused the Executive Order from going into effect by issuing an injunction. Now, the Supreme Court has said that this nationwide pause is too broad and the lower court needs to more specifically define how the EO will be limited temporarily.” 

Lindepere continues, “The case now goes back to the lower court, and we will need to wait for a new injunction to see exactly how many people might be impacted by the EO in the short term and for whom it remains paused. Families impacted by this executive order may soon need to pursue individual or class action lawsuits to defend their children’s rights under the 14th Amendment, unless a final decision on the EO is reached first. The legal foundation for birthright citizenship hasn’t changed yet, but the legal strategy to protect it certainly has.”

Bottom Line: Birthright Citizenship Remains Legal, But With an Uncertain Future 

The Supreme Court’s decision does not settle the constitutional debate over birthright citizenship, but it reshapes how immigration policy challenges can be brought and blocked in the courts. 

With nationwide injunctions now harder to obtain, future legal battles may become more fragmented and urgent for individuals and states alike. As the 30-day countdown begins, both sides are preparing for the next round of litigation over who qualifies for U.S. citizenship at birth—and who gets to decide.