Judge Joseph Laplante Halts Order to End Birthright Citizenship in NH

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

On February 10, 2025, Judge Laplante issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship.
The order would have denied citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, effective February 19, 2025.
Parallel rulings in Washington and Maryland also blocked the order, with potential appeals and Supreme Court involvement expected.

On February 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking an executive order signed by President Donald Trump that aimed to end birthright citizenship for children of certain groups. This decision mirrors those made in Washington and Maryland, where federal judges similarly halted the controversial order. This executive order sought a fundamental reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, sparking widespread legal challenges and debate.

The Executive Order and Its Impact

Judge Joseph Laplante Halts Order to End Birthright Citizenship in NH

The executive order, signed early in Trump’s second term, was set to take effect on February 19, 2025. It instructed federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to children born in the United States if their parents were undocumented immigrants or held lawful but temporary visas. President Trump argued that citizenship should not automatically extend to such children, claiming this interpretation was consistent with the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

This section of the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Trump’s executive order sought to redefine the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” in a way that excluded children whose parents had no permanent legal status in the country.

Legal Challenges and Judge Laplante’s Ruling

The legal challenge against the order in New Hampshire was brought forward by several plaintiffs, including New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support and two other non-profits. They argued that the executive order would harm individuals in their communities—especially families with expected additions—leading to significant uncertainty about their children’s citizenship status.

In granting the injunction, Judge Laplante ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to face irreparable harm if the policy were enacted. He highlighted that the harms to the plaintiffs outweighed any potential harm to the government caused by delaying the executive order. The injunction effectively maintained the current rules on birthright citizenship while legal proceedings continue.

Judge Laplante, a Republican appointee, emphasized the seriousness of legal arguments from both plaintiffs and defendants, noting that robust discussions help fortify the rule of law. His ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s role in evaluating executive actions, particularly when they involve longstanding constitutional principles like citizenship rights under the 14th Amendment.

Historical Context and Precedents

The legal battle over the executive order is, at its heart, a debate about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War. Its primary purpose was to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals and their descendants. In 1898, the Supreme Court, in the landmark United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, clarified the scope of this amendment. The ruling established that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are granted citizenship, regardless of their parents’ nationality or immigration status. Exceptions included children of diplomats, enemies during an occupation, those born on foreign ships, and children of sovereign Native American tribes.

The Wong Kim Ark case has served as the foundation for birthright citizenship in the United States for over a century. Representing the plaintiffs in the New Hampshire case, ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy argued that the Trump administration’s order contradicted this well-established precedent. He criticized the executive order as a radical overreach that sought to bypass Congress’s legislative authority on an issue of such constitutional significance.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration relied on the 1884 Supreme Court decision in Elk v. Wilkins, where the Court ruled that John Elk, born on a Native American reservation, was not considered a U.S. citizen because he was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the same way as the general population. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign used this ruling to support the claim that undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors owe allegiance to other nations and that their children should be excluded from birthright citizenship.

Both sides debated definitions of jurisdiction and allegiance and presented sharply contrasting interpretations of constitutional terms. However, Judge Laplante ultimately found the plaintiffs’ arguments, backed by over a century of precedent derived from Wong Kim Ark, to be more legally persuasive.

Similar Rulings Across the Nation

Judge Laplante’s ruling is part of a broader national legal fight against the executive order. Judges in Washington and Maryland recently issued similar injunctions:

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, a Republican appointee, blocked the order last week. In his decision, he criticized the administration’s disregard for constitutional protections, noting, “The rule of law is not a political tool to be manipulated for personal or policy goals.”
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland, a Democratic appointee, also stopped the order from proceeding in response to lawsuits filed by advocates for immigrants and pregnant women who would be directly impacted.

Another lawsuit is pending in Boston, where U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin is deliberating a challenge brought by 18 states. These coordinated legal efforts underscore the contentious and nationwide implications of Trump’s executive order.

Broader Implications of the Legal Struggle

Birthright citizenship, as practiced in the United States, is based on the principle of jus soli, or “right of the soil.” Approximately 30 countries worldwide apply this principle, most of which are in the Americas, such as Canada and Mexico. In contrast, many other nations grant citizenship based on jus sanguinis, or “right of blood,” which ties citizenship to a parent’s nationality rather than the place of birth.

Trump’s attempt to narrow the scope of jus soli in the United States has sparked significant opposition from civil rights organizations, immigrant communities, and constitutional scholars. Groups like the ACLU have characterized the executive order as both a legal and moral violation. Wofsy, representing the plaintiffs in New Hampshire, described the policy as “wildly unconstitutional” and pledged continued legal resistance.

Critics of the order also argue that it undermines the principles the United States was founded upon by denying automatic citizenship to children born in the country. In contrast, supporters of the order believe it is necessary to curb illegal immigration and prevent potential misuse of U.S. citizenship laws.

The Role of the Courts and Future Developments

Judge Laplante’s ruling, along with those from other federal judges, underscores the judiciary’s central role in safeguarding constitutional rights and acting as a check on executive power. By granting preliminary injunctions, courts have ensured that the executive order faces rigorous legal scrutiny before its full implementation.

So far, the Trump administration has not appealed Judge Laplante’s decision. However, given the high-profile nature of the case and the administration’s stated goals, appeals are expected. The legal challenges could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where questions about judicial precedent and executive authority will likely take center stage.

Conclusion and Advice Moving Forward

Judge Joseph Laplante’s injunction against the Trump administration’s executive order represents a critical moment for birthright citizenship and immigration law in the United States. For now, the ruling maintains established protections for children born in the country, keeping over a century of legal precedent intact.

For individuals and families concerned about their rights under this unfolding legal situation, it is essential to stay informed about case developments. Consulting with experienced immigration attorneys and carefully monitoring official government updates, such as those provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), is vital.

As this contentious issue moves through the courts, it highlights the complexity of constitutional interpretation and the deeply embedded values surrounding citizenship in the U.S. Whether the executive order ultimately stands or falls, it is certain to leave a lasting impression on the national immigration debate. For now, however, birthright citizenship remains both protected and fiercely defended in America.

(This article should not be substituted for legal advice. Always consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice tailored to your specific situation.)

Learn Today

Preliminary Injunction → A temporary court order preventing an action until a final decision is made in a legal case.
Birthright Citizenship → The right to U.S. citizenship for individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
14th Amendment → A constitutional amendment granting citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., ensuring equal protection under the law.
Jus Soli → A principle that grants citizenship based on the place of birth, also known as “right of the soil.”
Executive Order → A directive issued by the U.S. President that manages operations of the federal government, sometimes subject to legal challenges.

This Article in a Nutshell

Judge Joseph Laplante’s February 2025 ruling halts Trump’s executive order redefining birthright citizenship, citing potential constitutional violations. Rooted in the 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship faces fierce legal battles nationwide. This decision preserves a century-old precedent, amplifying debates over immigration, constitutional intent, and executive authority. America’s foundational principles hang in the balance. Stay informed.
— By VisaVerge.com