U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in Concord, New Hampshire, made the ruling after immigrant rights advocates implored him to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any babies whose citizenship status would be threatened by the implementation of Trump s directive.
Laplante agreed the plaintiffs could proceed as a class, allowing him to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president s policy nationally.
The question of whether to issue an injunction was "not a close call," he said, noting children could be deprived of U.S. citizenship if Trump s order took effect.
"That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone," he said. "It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
The judge said he would stay his ruling for seven days to allow the Trump administration to appeal and would issue a written decision by the end of the day.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Under the Supreme Court s decision, Trump s executive order had been set to take effect on July 27.
The ACLU and others had filed the suit just hours after the Supreme Court on June 27 issued a 6-3 ruling, powered by its conservative majority, that narrowed three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in separate challenges to Trump s directive. The suit was filed on behalf of non-U.S. citizens living in the United States whose babies might be affected.
CLASS ACTIONS
Looking to seize upon an exception in the Supreme Court s ruling, the lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the decision allows judges to continue to block Trump policies on a nationwide basis in class action lawsuits.
The three judges who issued nationwide injunctions found that Trump s directive likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution s 14th Amendment. The amendment states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
The Justice Department has argued that Trump s order conforms with the Constitution and has asked Laplante to find that the plaintiffs cannot sue as a class.
The Supreme Court s ruling did not address the legal merits of Trump s order, which the Republican president issued as part of his hardline immigration agenda on his first day back in office in January.
Read more: Starving to death: Over 700 Palestinians killed while seeking aid in Gaza
Trump s order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if it takes effect nationally, according to Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who have challenged it.
UNIVERSAL INJUNCTIONS
The Supreme Court ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of the three injunctions that had blocked Trump s order from being enforced anywhere in the country against anyone after finding judges lack the authority to issue so-called "universal injunctions" that cover people who are not parties to the lawsuit before the judge.
Although the Trump administration hailed the ruling as a major victory, federal judges have continued to issue sweeping rulings blocking key parts of Trump s agenda found to be unlawful.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the decision for the court, made clear that it did not prevent plaintiffs from obtaining essentially the same type of relief as provided in a nationwide injunction by instead bringing class action lawsuits that seek to represent all similarly situated people, among other exceptions.
Immigrant rights advocates launched two proposed class actions that same day, including the one before Laplante, who in a related case also concluded in February that Trump s order was likely unconstitutional.
Laplante, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, ruled that Trump s order contradicted the 14th Amendment and a 1898 Supreme Court ruling interpreting it.
In that case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court interpreted that amendment as recognizing the right to birthright citizenship regardless of the immigration status of a baby s parents.
Laplante agreed at the time that an injunction was warranted, saying that "the denial of citizenship to the plaintiffs members children would render the children either undocumented noncitizens or stateless entirely."
But Laplante limited the scope of his order to members of the three immigrant rights nonprofit organizations who pursued the case before him.
Lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday urged Laplante to go further by certifying a nationwide class of babies and their parents who would be affected by Trump s order, saying that absent a court order thousands of families nationally would be unprotected.
Laplante noted during Thursday s hearing that he was the one judge who had not issued a nationwide injunction in his previous ruling on Trump s order.
"It s a better process to narrow these decisions and not have judges create national policy," he said. "That said, the Supreme Court suggested a class action is a better option.”
Trump s administration countered that the three noncitizens parents and expectant parents seeking to serve as lead plaintiffs have immigration statuses that are too different to be able to pursue a single class action together and that an injunction at this time would "short circuit" the usual lengthier process required for them to obtain relief.
