The Following Content Has Been Provided by:Bob Unruh
A federal judge has pulled an end-around on a ruling from the Supreme Court, declaring he would halt President Donald Trump’s agenda on birthright citizenship by creating a worldwide class of plaintiffs, avoiding the new counsel from the Supreme Court against wildly using nationwide injunctions.
That recent ruling said district judges are overusing nationwide injunctions, exercising power they never were given by Congress or the Constitution.
So instead of a nationwide injunction, Judge Joseph LaPlante of Concord, New Hampshire, has declared a class action status for all babies potentially affected by Trump’s ruling.
The Supreme Court’s decision came in a fight over injunctions handed out in cases brought against his birthright order, but the issue of the birthright itself never was before the Supreme Court and has not been decided.
LaPlante again has barred Trump’s administration from enforcing his executive order on the dispute.
When plaintiffs insisted he grant them class action status, a maneuver that appears to go around the Supreme Court’s ruling on injunctions, he agreed.
He claimed children could be deprived of U.S. citizenship if Trump’s order took effect.
Laplante claimed that’s “irreparable harm.”
BREAKING: Judge Joseph Laplante BLOCKS Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship DESPITE Supreme Court ruling restricting the ability of judges to block Trump’s policies. pic.twitter.com/w3ViXhkPTJ
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 10, 2025
BREAKING: US District Judge Joseph Laplante has just BLOCKED Donald Trump from enforcing his birthright citizenship executive order nationwide after granting a class action lawsuit to proceed pic.twitter.com/LwkRjeEic0
— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) July 10, 2025
He stayed his ruling for a few days to allow an appeal by the administration.
A number of leftist organizations filed the latest lawsuit hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling on June 27, 6-3, that narrowed three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in separate challenges to Trump’s directive.
Reports described the lawyers and plaintiffs as “looking to seize upon an exception in the Supreme Court’s ruling,” by calling it a class action dispute.
The issue is that lower court judges previously had halted Trump’s order nationwide.
It concerns the 14th Amendment, stating, “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 Department of Justice has explained that Trump’s order actually follows the Constitution, as the key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The explanation is that those in the U.S. illegally, or temporarily, are not necessarily subject, and therefor are not qualified for citizenship.
Trump’s order specifies that U.S.-born children who do not have a least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident do not qualify.
Government lawyers have argued that prior “misimpressions of the citizenship clause” actually have created a “perverse incentive” for illegal aliens to come to the U.S., and that has hurt the nation.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs, after the ruling, bragged it was going “to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order.”
Fox News reported the Trump administration is expected to file an immediate appeal.
The Supreme Court earlier was asked only to rule on the issue of nationwide injunctions by judges from the entry level courts of the federal judiciary.
The ruling found those judges likely were exceeding any authority they had in trying to control the president’s orders on a nationwide basis.
The Supreme Court, considering the demands by the district judges to exceed their own authority, said, “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The court grants the government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the majority opinion of the court’s 6-3 ruling.
Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined, and the leftists on the court collaborated on a dissent written by Sonia Sotomayor. Joining her were Justices Kagan and Jackson, the legal scholar who during her Senate confirmation hearings was incapable of defining “woman.”
The ruling said, “The issue raised by these applications—whether Congress has granted federal courts authority to universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive order—plainly warrants this court’s review. On multiple occasions, and across administrations, the Solicitor General has asked the court to consider the propriety of this expansive remedy.”
Now, with Trump in his second term, those injunctions have “increased.”
And with that has the importance of the issue.
“The government is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the district courts lacked authority to issue universal injunctions,” the ruling said. “The issuance of a universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power. The Judiciary Act of 1789 endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over ‘all suits . . . in equity,’ and still today, this statute ‘is what authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies.’
“This court has held that the statutory grant encompasses only those sorts of equitable remedies ‘traditionally accorded by courts of equity’ at our country’s inception.”
The wild orders by district judges – one demanded that the president turn jets already out of American airspace that were deporting illegal alien criminals around mid-flight – oblivious to the question of whether they would have enough fuel to return to their origination points – are simply “not sufficiently ‘analogous’ to any relief available in the court of equity in England at the time of the founding,” the ruling said.
