Birth Right Citizenship Order Blocked by Federal Court in New Hampshire
A federal court today granted relief to children born on or after February 20, 2025 by blocking enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Order which denied US citizenship to children born to parents who don’t have legal status or parents who are in legal status but are on status such as H1b or L-1 or TN or F-1. Now all such parents, for the time being, don’t have to worry if their children will be granted US citizenship.
The lawsuit, Barbara et al. v. Trump, filed with the federal court in New Hampshire, challenged the executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which sought to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their mother was either unlawfully present or temporarily in the country (such as on a visa), and their father was not a U.S. citizen or green card holder. The executive order of President Trump applied only to births occurring more than 30 days after it was signed, targeting children born on or after February 20, 2025.
Today, the federal court in New Hampshire ruled in favor of plaintiff and has temporarily blocked enforcement of President Trump’s controversial executive order on birthright citizenship. The court’s ruling, issued on July 10, 2025, restrains federal agencies from implementing a policy that would deny U.S. citizenship to certain children born on U.S. soil. The decision effectively protects thousands of families across the country.
The U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction applicable to a provisionally certified class of:
All current and future persons born on or after February 20, 2025, whose mother was either unlawfully present or lawfully but temporarily present in the United States, and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth.
Because this class captures virtually every individual affected by the executive order, and the injunction blocks federal enforcement entirely, the ruling has a nationwide impact—even though it avoids the formal label of a nationwide injunction.
The injunction applies to multiple federal agencies and their leadership, including:
- The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
- The Department of State
- The Department of Agriculture
- The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
Each agency is barred from enforcing the executive order against class members. The court issued the injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Welcome Relief to Parents Amid Confusion and Legal Chaos
The decision brings long-awaited clarity following months of legal uncertainty. Prior to this ruling, federal courts had issued piecemeal injunctions that applied only to the individual plaintiffs or narrowly defined groups. This resulted in confusion: some U.S.-born children were protected while others, born under identical circumstances in different jurisdictions, were not.
Immigration attorneys reported an influx of inquiries from worried parents asking whether their children were covered and whether they needed to take legal action. In response, legal teams across the country began organizing families to file lawsuits—a costly and time-consuming process. The New Hampshire court’s classwide injunction halted that scramble by pausing enforcement for all children meeting the defined criteria.
Why the Court’s Approach Is Consistent With Trump v. CASA
Some headlines have incorrectly described the ruling as a “nationwide injunction.” In fact, it is not a universal injunction but rather protection granted to a certified class whose members happen to be located across the United States. This distinction is important in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (June 27, 2025), which held that federal trial courts may not issue nationwide injunctions unless the relief is confined to the plaintiffs or to individuals within a certified class.
That is exactly what the New Hampshire court did. It certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class based on findings that:
- The class was too numerous for joinder,
- There were common questions of law and fact,
- The petitioners’ claims were typical of the class, and
- The petitioners and their counsel would fairly and adequately represent the class.
Since the executive order targeted a large population—not just the named plaintiffs—the court issued uniform relief for all class members. This preserved the nationwide reach of the ruling while staying within constitutional limits.
To allow time for the federal government to appeal, the court stayed the injunction for seven days. The Department of Justice is expected to file an appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Given the constitutional importance of the issues involved, the case may ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court—either after an appellate ruling or through expedited review.
What Happens Next: Many Lawsuits, One Legal Path
The New Hampshire case is just one of several challenges filed in federal courts across the country—including in California, Texas, New York, and Illinois. Each of these cases will proceed to a ruling on the merits. The outcomes may vary across jurisdictions, potentially leading to inconsistent circuit court decisions.
In that scenario, the Supreme Court is expected to step in and resolve the issue. The Court may wait for appellate rulings or may grant certiorari before judgment if it determines that immediate review is warranted due to the issue’s national significance. The expected timeline for the legal process could span up to two years. District court rulings on the merits may take approximately four to nine months. Appeals to the circuit courts are likely to follow within six to twelve months after those initial decisions. If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, its review may occur within twelve to twenty-four months from now, unless the Court chooses to expedite the matter due to its national significance.
This ruling sends a clear message: while federal courts cannot issue universal injunctions against executive actions, they can—and do—protect broad groups through class certification. That’s what happened here. By tying relief to a defined class, the court complied with the Supreme Court’s recent guidance and provided meaningful, nationwide protection without overstepping procedural bounds.
For now, children born in the United States on or after February 20, 2025, remain protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, even if their parents are undocumented or on temporary visas. While the litigation continues, this injunction gives families across the country a much-needed reprieve.
About the Author
Discover more from Immigration Analytics
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
