July 10 EST: In a sharp rebuke of one of Donald Trump’s most legally audacious efforts to reshape American citizenship, a federal judge on Wednesday issued a preliminary injunction that effectively freezes the former president’s attempt to strip birthright citizenship from the children of undocumented and temporarily present immigrants.
But this isn’t just a procedural win for civil rights lawyers. It’s the first major judicial pushback against Executive Order 14160, and more crucially, a test of how power operates in a post-Trump v. CASA legal terrain, where federal judges are barred from issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions—unless they find another way.
A Tactical Victory With Constitutional Stakes
Make no mistake: Judge Joseph LaPlante’s ruling was not just about children. It was about strategy. Faced with a Supreme Court that clipped the wings of lower courts just two weeks ago, LaPlante certified a national class of plaintiffs—children who would lose citizenship under Trump’s order—and granted them relief that, while technically limited to their group, effectively halts enforcement across the country.
It was, in legal terms, a workaround. In political terms, a statement.
“The risk of irreparable harm here is not abstract,” LaPlante wrote. “It is immediate and severe.” With that, the judge didn’t just reject the government’s constitutional theory; he exposed it as reckless, finding it so flawed as to justify emergency judicial intervention.
For Trump, who made anti-immigrant populism a central plank of his 2016 and 2024 campaigns, the executive order was never just about immigration—it was about reasserting control over the very definition of who counts as American. But the courts, once again, are signaling that even presidents can’t edit the Constitution by fiat.
Birthright Citizenship: A Political Lightning Rod Since Reconstruction
The fight over birthright citizenship is hardly new. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was designed to undo the racial caste system of slavery. Its Citizenship Clause guaranteed that anyone born on U.S. soil and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was a citizen.
Over the years, conservative legal scholars have zeroed in on that jurisdiction clause to argue that not all births on U.S. soil qualify. Trump, as president, was the first to turn that theory into executive action.
But even Antonin Scalia, no liberal lion, reportedly warned off earlier administrations from challenging birthright citizenship outright—viewing it as constitutionally settled. That Trump would take it on now, and that his judiciary would entertain the question, shows just how deeply the constitutional consensus has eroded.
A Judicial Response in the Age of Restriction
Until last month, a federal judge like LaPlante might have simply issued a nationwide injunction. But the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA blew up that playbook. It ruled that federal judges cannot block executive orders on a national scale unless they’re doing so within the bounds of a certified class.
So LaPlante pivoted. Rather than claim universal authority, he certified a legal class: every child, born or unborn, who would be denied citizenship under the executive order. The effect is sweeping, but legally defensible. ACLU lawyers were ready for this—they filed the New Hampshire suit within hours of the CASA decision, anticipating exactly this path.
This wasn’t just good lawyering. It was an act of constitutional preservation by procedural means.
What Happens Now?
The Trump administration now faces a ticking clock. It has until July 17 to appeal to the First Circuit. It almost certainly will. And if the appeals court upholds the injunction, expect the government to race to the Supreme Court, where the justices—six of whom were appointed by Republican presidents—may be more sympathetic to the executive’s authority.
But even among conservatives, there is little consensus that Trump’s order is lawful. The Citizenship Clause has been reaffirmed time and again by courts of every ideological stripe. Striking it down would be an earthquake.
That said, the Roberts Court has increasingly shown a willingness to reopen foundational questions, particularly around immigration, voting, and civil rights. Should this case reach the high court, it could well become a landmark moment in constitutional law—not just about immigration, but about the nature of federal judicial power in the face of a resurgent executive branch.
The Broader Political Context
Let’s be clear: this is a political battle disguised as a legal one. Trump, who has made nativist themes central to his comeback campaign, isn’t just testing the limits of executive power. He’s testing the country’s willingness to redefine Americanness—from the bottom up, starting at birth.
To many conservatives, birthright citizenship is the original sin of modern immigration law—a policy that, in their view, incentivizes illegal entry and “anchor babies.” To the vast majority of legal scholars and historians, it is one of America’s most radical promises: that identity here is not inherited by blood, but by soil.
This is why the fight matters. It’s not just about whether children of undocumented immigrants get a passport. It’s about whether the country keeps its word.
What to Watch Next
Aside from the looming appeal, similar class-action cases are now moving through Maryland and possibly other circuits. A legal patchwork could emerge, and the pressure for Supreme Court resolution will only grow.
For now, the ruling in Barbara v. Trump buys time—not just for families, but for the idea of a citizenship that transcends paperwork and politics.
Whether that idea survives the next court battle is anything but certain.
New Jersey Times Is Your Source: The Latest In Politics, Entertainment, Business, Breaking News, And Other News. Please Follow Us On Facebook, Instagram, And Twitter To Receive Instantaneous Updates. Also Do Checkout Our Telegram Channel @Njtdotcom For Latest Updates.
A political science PhD who jumped the academic ship to cover real-time governance, Olivia is the East Coast's sharpest watchdog. She dissects power plays in Trenton and D.C. without bias or apology.
