A federal judge in New Hampshire on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order by certifying a nationwide class action, marking the first such ruling since the Supreme Court narrowed the ability of lower courts to issue sweeping injunctions against presidential policies.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, an appointee of former President George W. Bush in Concord, sided with immigrant rights advocates who filed the case on behalf of children who could be denied U.S. citizenship under Trump’s directive. By granting class status to all potentially affected babies nationwide, Laplante cleared the way to issue a new order blocking enforcement of the policy.

Recommended Stories

• DOJ subpoenas doctors involved in child transgender procedures
• Appeals court overturns pro-Trump influencer's conviction for spreading 2016 voting misinformation
• DOJ sues California over transgender athletes policies

The question of whether to issue an injunction is “not a close call,” Laplante said. “That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone. It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.” The judge said a written order would be forthcoming, likely laying out the scope and guidelines that come with certifying the nationwide class.

The judge said he would stay his ruling for several days to give the Justice Department time to appeal. A written decision is expected by the end of the day.

The ruling comes just two weeks after the Supreme Court’s June 27 decision limiting nationwide injunctions. The 6-3 majority found that three lower court judges had overstepped by blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship order across the entire country. However, the high court left the door open for nationwide class certifications in specific cases, which Laplante cited in allowing the suit to proceed.

The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups, represents illegal immigrants residing in the United States whose children could be denied citizenship under the order.

Issued on Jan. 20, Trump’s first day back in office, the executive order directs federal agencies to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Opponents say it violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees birthright citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

More than 150,000 newborns could be affected annually if the policy is implemented, according to Democratic-led states and immigration groups who oppose the measure.

The Justice Department argued that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to sue as a class and that the executive order falls within constitutional bounds. The Constitution does not, they claim, guarantee citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, pointing to historical anecdotes such as the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S.

Laplante’s ruling leans into the workaround left available by the high court, pausing enforcement of Trump’s policy while legal challenges continue. In the high court’s majority decision, authored by Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, both appointed by Trump, wrote that nationwide class action remedies would be available to parties still challenging this order in court.

Plaintiffs “may sometimes seek to proceed by class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and ask a court to award preliminary class wide relief that may, for example, be statewide, region wide, or even nationwide,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Although not a final judgment, the decision in New Hampshire marks a new blow to the administration’s immigration crackdown.

WHAT’S NEXT FOR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AFTER THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the merits of Trump’s executive order, leaving open the possibility that the issue could return to the justices during the next term.

All three Democratic-appointed justices on the high court signaled their belief earlier this year that the order was illegal, while the six Republican-appointed members did not specify their thinking one way or another.