A New Hampshire federal judge has questioned whether the American Civil Liberties Union can use an existing case to challenge President Donald Trump's latest measures targeting birthright citizenship, suggesting that a new lawsuit may be necessary.
Judge Joseph Normand Laplante made the comments during a hearing on Tuesday, 22 September, after the ACLU asked whether an earlier injunction could also protect children affected by Trump's new executive orders.
'I view the Barbara case as essentially over,' Laplante said, referring to litigation that began in New Hampshire and reached the US Supreme Court.
The hearing did not decide whether the August orders are constitutional or formally require the ACLU to file a separate case. Instead, Laplante was considering whether the existing litigation could be used to challenge measures covering a different group of children.
Laplante Sees A Different Class
The Barbara litigation began after Trump issued Executive Order 14160 in January 2025, seeking to deny citizenship to some children born in the United States to parents who were unlawfully or temporarily present.
Laplante issued a preliminary injunction blocking the order, and the case ultimately reached the Supreme Court. On 30 June 2026, the court held that children born in the US to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
Trump signed two further executive orders on 6 August. Executive Order 14418, 'Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship', identifies categories of children whose citizenship federal agencies should not recognise, including children whose parents fall within the order's definition of 'alien enemy', certain foreign-government employees and specified commercial or fraudulent arrangements connected to obtaining citizenship.
Executive Order 14419, 'Ending Birth Tourism', takes a different approach. It directs the government to address foreign nationals entering the United States on nonimmigrant visas for the purpose of giving birth.
The ACLU returned to the New Hampshire court seeking clarification that the earlier injunction also protected children covered by the new measures. The organisation subsequently sought permission to supplement its complaint.
Laplante indicated that the newer orders appeared to concern a different class from the children covered by the original case.
'Because the new executive orders apply to a different class than the original case, it seems like a new lawsuit,' he said, according to a report of the hearing.
ACLU Wants One Fight, Not Two
Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, argued that the newer measures should be considered within the broader dispute over birthright citizenship.
'This is one kit and caboodle, really,' Wofsy told the court.
Wofsy said the ACLU would accept a new case if necessary but wanted clarity on how to obtain relief for children affected by the newer orders.
A new lawsuit could require separate filings, hearings and requests for preliminary relief, creating a different timetable from the existing Barbara litigation.
Maryland Ruling Creates a Second Track
The New Hampshire hearing is unfolding alongside separate litigation in Maryland.
US District Judge Deborah Boardman has been considering a challenge to Executive Order 14418. On 28 August, she declined to immediately block the order but allowed the plaintiffs to supplement their complaint and set an expedited schedule.
President Trump’s latest attempt to limit birthright citizenship has been blocked by a federal judge, stating “no Presidential Executive Order can undo what the Supreme Court has done.” https://t.co/wvTQBLofI0
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) September 3, 2026
On 2 September, Boardman issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Executive Order 14418 for the certified class in that case.
That protection is separate from Laplante's New Hampshire proceedings. The Maryland injunction does not itself determine whether the ACLU can expand Barbara to cover children targeted by the newer orders.
DOJ Pushes for a Separate Case
Justice Department special counsel Brad Rosenberg argued that the administration was concerned about spending resources on motions that could soon become moot.
The government's position puts the procedural question before Laplante: whether the newer measures should be litigated within the existing case or through a new action.
Laplante did not issue a final ruling requiring the ACLU to file a new lawsuit. His comments also did not determine whether either August order is constitutional or enforceable.
For now, the immediate dispute is whether the existing Barbara case can provide relief for children covered by the newer measures, or whether the ACLU will have to start a separate case.
