A federal judge in New Hampshire just slammed the brakes on President Donald Trump’s bold move to end birthright citizenship for children of unauthorized migrants, as Breitbart reports.

Appointed by George W. Bush, Judge Joseph LaPlante issued a classwide preliminary injunction, siding with plaintiffs backed by George and Alex Soros’s Open Society Foundations. The ruling smells like a classic case of judicial overreach, but it’s got enough legal muscle to stir the pot.

Trump signed the executive order right after taking office, aiming to stop automatic citizenship for roughly 250,000 babies born annually to unauthorized migrants. This policy, once a Democrat darling, has flipped into a progressive sacred cow, and the Soros-linked lawsuit proves the left’s ready to fight dirty. LaPlante’s decision temporarily shields these families, but it’s a shaky win built on questionable precedent.

The lawsuit kicked off when plaintiffs, representing current and future U.S.-born children of unauthorized or temporarily present mothers, challenged Trump’s order. Their argument hinges on the 14th Amendment, claiming it guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental status. Conservatives argue this interpretation’s a stretch, rewarding lawbreaking with a golden ticket.

Judge LaPlante issues injunction

Judge LaPlante didn’t just block the order; he went big, granting a classwide injunction affecting multiple federal agencies.

“The court hereby finds that Class Petitioners have demonstrated likelihood of success,” LaPlante declared, patting the plaintiffs’ case on the back. But banking on “likelihood” feels like a judicial coin toss, especially when the stakes are this high.

The injunction hits the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, freezing their ability to enforce Trump’s order. L

aPlante argued the plaintiffs face “irreparable harm” without his intervention, but what about the harm to national sovereignty? That question’s conveniently sidestepped.

The court’s logic leans on the plaintiffs’ potential suffering outweighing the government’s inconvenience. “The potential harm to the class petitioners… outweighs the potential harm to Respondents,” LaPlante wrote. Yet, ignoring the broader impact on immigration policy feels like a deliberate blind spot, favoring emotion over reason.

Soros connection raises eyebrows

The Soros connection, exposed by Breitbart News in April, adds a spicy twist to this legal drama. Open Society Foundations, long accused of meddling in global politics, are bankrolling the plaintiffs’ fight. It’s hard not to see this as a well-funded jab at Trump’s agenda, cloaked in humanitarian robes.

LaPlante’s ruling also provisionally certified the plaintiff class, covering all U.S.-born children from Feb. 20, 2025, whose mothers were unlawfully or temporarily present and whose fathers weren’t citizens or permanent residents. “Petitioners have satisfied the requirements for provisional class certification,” he stated, setting a broad net. This expansive class feels like a setup for a drawn-out legal slog.

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on class actions gave this case its teeth, requiring plaintiffs to prove common injuries for nationwide impact. The plaintiffs wisely filed as a class, dodging the jurisdictional trap. But leaning on technicalities to upend policy reeks of lawfare, not justice.

Public interest or political posturing?

LaPlante insists the injunction serves the public interest, but whose public? The roughly 250,000 annual “anchor babies” -- a term conservatives use to highlight how citizenship secures families’ stays -- strain resources and muddy enforcement. Rewarding unchecked migration with citizenship isn’t the slam-dunk “public good” LaPlante claims.

The judge required a mere $1 bond for the injunction, a symbolic gesture under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). It’s a low bar for such a high-stakes ruling, almost mocking the gravity of the issue. A seven-day stay pending appeal offers Trump’s team a brief window to counterpunch, but the clock’s ticking.

Plaintiffs argued they would face dire consequences without the injunction, from lost benefits to family separations. LaPlante bought it, citing “irreparable harm” as a key factor. But the harm of unchecked migration — overwhelmed borders, strained systems -- gets no airtime in his courtroom.

Trump’s policy faces uphill battle

Trump’s executive order was a lightning rod, reigniting debates over the 14th Amendment’s scope. Conservatives argue it was never meant to reward illegal entry, while progressives clutch their pearls at the thought of amending tradition. The truth likely lies in the messy middle, but LaPlante’s ruling tilts hard left.

The injunction’s scope, freezing multiple agencies, shows the plaintiffs’ ambition to kneecap Trump’s immigration agenda. By tying the hands of DHS and others, LaPlante handed a temporary win to open-borders advocates. It’s a slick move, but one that might crumble under appellate scrutiny.

This legal tussle is far from over, with Trump’s team likely prepping an appeal to restore the order. The Soros-backed plaintiffs may have won this round, but the fight over birthright citizenship is a marathon, not a sprint. For now, LaPlante’s ruling keeps the status quo, leaving conservatives frustrated but undeterred.