How citizenship chaos was averted, for now, by a class action injunction against Trump’s birthright citizenship order

Julie Novkov, University at Albany,  State University of New York

Legal battles over President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship continued on July 10, 2025, after a New Hampshire federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction that will, if it’s not reversed, prevent federal officials from enforcing the order nationally.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, a George W. Bush appointee, asserts that this policy of “highly questionable constitutionality … constitutes irreparable harm.”

In its ruling in late June, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to deny citizenship to infants born to undocumented parents in many parts of the nation where individuals or states had not successfully sued to prevent implementation – including a number of mid-Atlantic, Midwest and Southern states.

Trump’s executive order limits U.S. citizenship by birth to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. It denies citizenship to those born to undocumented people within the U.S. and to the children of those on student, work, tourist and certain other types of visas.

The preliminary injunction is on hold for seven days to allow the Trump administration to appeal.

The June 27 Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship limited the ability of lower-court judges to issue universal injunctions to block such executive orders nationwide.

Almost all U.S.-born children are issued birth certificates by the state in which they are born.

The federal government’s standardized form, the U.S. standard certificate of live birth, collects data on parents’ birthplaces and their Social Security numbers, if available, and provides the information states need to issue birth certificates. But it does not ask questions about their citizenship or immigration status. And no national standard exists for the format for state birth certificates, which traditionally have been the simplest way for people born in the U.S. to establish citizenship.

If Trump’s executive order goes into effect, birth certificates issued by local hospitals would be insufficient evidence of eligibility for federal government documents acknowledging citizenship.

The order would require new efforts, including identification of parents’ citizenship status, before authorizing the issuance of any federal document acknowledging citizenship.

While the Supreme Court has not yet confirmed that these states have standing to challenge the order, successful litigation could bar implementation in up to 18 states and the District of Columbia if injunctions are narrowly framed, or nationally if lawyers can persuade judges that disentangling the effects on a state-by-state basis will be too difficult.

Other states will likely collaborate with the administration to deny citizenship to some infants. Some, like Texas, had earlier attempted to make it particularly hard for undocumented parents to obtain birth certificates for their children.

The consequences could be profound.

Some infants would become stateless, having no right to citizenship in another nation. Many people born in the U.S. would be denied government benefits, Social Security numbers and the ability to work legally in the U.S.

With the constitutionality of the executive order still unresolved, it’s unclear when, if ever, some infants born in the U.S. will be the first in the modern era to be denied citizenship.

[Abridged]