President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants has hit another legal roadblock. A third federal judge, Joseph N. Laplante of New Hampshire, ruled against Trump’s executive order, reinforcing previous rulings from courts in Seattle and Maryland. The decision underscores an ongoing legal and constitutional battle over the 14th Amendment, raising questions about presidential authority, immigration policy, and the rule of law.
Why Was the Order Blocked?
Judge Laplante’s ruling, though brief, signaled significant constitutional concerns. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Historically, the Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship in landmark cases like United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which confirmed that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are citizens, except for those born to diplomats, foreign soldiers in occupied territories, or members of sovereign Native American tribes.
Laplante, a Republican-appointed judge, was unconvinced by the administration’s argument that children of undocumented immigrants do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction. He stated, “I’m not persuaded by the defendants’ arguments on this motion,” but emphasized that he found the legal debate constructive, praising both sides for their advocacy.
Similarly, Judge John C. Coughenour of Seattle excoriated Trump’s attempt to redefine constitutional law, stating, “The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain.” His remarks highlight the broader judicial skepticism toward Trump’s approach.
Why Did Trump Push to Repeal Birthright Citizenship?
Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day back in office in 2025, was part of a broader immigration crackdown. It sought to deny U.S. citizenship to children born to parents who were either undocumented or in the country on temporary visas. His administration argued that birthright citizenship acted as a magnet for illegal immigration, incentivizing so-called “birth tourism” and anchor babies.
The legal justification rested on a narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The Trump administration asserted that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” excluded children of undocumented immigrants. This stance, however, clashes with over a century of Supreme Court precedent affirming that birthright citizenship applies broadly.
The Legal and Political Backlash
At least nine lawsuits have been filed against the executive order, with judges across the country issuing injunctions to block its enforcement. The Department of Justice has already appealed the ruling in Seattle, setting the stage for a showdown in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. If the appeals continue, the issue could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
Legal scholars and civil rights groups have overwhelmingly criticized Trump’s order as unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which spearheaded one of the lawsuits, called the executive order “a fundamental attack on American values.” Cody Wofsy, an ACLU attorney, argued that it is “straightforwardly illegal” under established Supreme Court rulings.
Some conservative legal experts, however, support Trump’s efforts, arguing that Congress, not the courts, should clarify birthright citizenship laws. They contend that the 14th Amendment was never meant to apply to undocumented immigrants, given that illegal immigration was not a widespread issue when the amendment was ratified.
With multiple injunctions in place, the executive order is effectively stalled. However, the Trump administration’s appeal process could drag on for months or even years. If the Supreme Court takes up the case, it could lead to the most significant ruling on immigration and citizenship in decades.
In the meantime, judges like Coughenour and Laplante have made it clear that they see Trump’s move as an unconstitutional overreach. As Coughenour firmly stated, “In this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.” Whether the Supreme Court will ultimately agree remains to be seen, but for now, birthright citizenship stands firm against executive challenge.
NP Editor: As much as we support Trump, we would hope for Trump’s efforts to fail in this case. Sometimes you just have to let people win.
