CONCORD, N.H. — A federal judge in New Hampshire granted class-action status Thursday to a lawsuit seeking to protect babies who would be denied birthright citizenship by the Trump administration and granted a temporary block of the president’s order restricting birthright citizenship from going into effect throughout the country.

The suit was brought on behalf of a pregnant immigrant, immigrant parents and their infants and had sought class-action status for all babies and their parents around the country who would be affected by the executive order.

Cody Wofsy, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, argued for class-action status in front of U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante on Thursday morning, saying that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm by being denied birthright citizenship, a claim the judge found credible.

Laplante ordered that class-action status be certified in the case but only for the babies who would be affected by the restrictions, not for the parents.

The judge also ordered a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking President Donald Trump’s order from going into effect, but stayed his order for seven days, allowing the government time to appeal.

“This is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order,” Wofsy said at a news conference after the hearing.

Attorneys for the Department of Justice had argued that the relief the plaintiffs were seeking was too broad and challenged whether the requirements for class-action status had been met. The department also argued that the request for the preliminary injunction and class status were premature and argued for time to appeal.

Laplante said during Thursday’s court hearing that depriving a person of the longstanding right of birthright citizenship was “irreparable harm” and that birthright citizenship was “the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the judge’s order.

Before Thursday’s hearing, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told NBC News: “The Trump Administration is committed to lawfully implementing the President’s Executive Order to protect the meaning and value of American citizenship and which restores the Fourteenth Amendment to its original intent.”

After the hearing, the Department of Justice referred NBC News to a previous statement from Attorney General Pam Bondi last week that followed another judge’s order in a separate immigration case, saying a “rogue district court judge is already trying to circumvent the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against nationwide injunctions.” Bondi added in that statement, “the American people see right through this” and that Department of Justice attorneys will continue to fight for Trump’s agenda to secure the U.S. border.

That statement from Bondi on July 2 was in reference to a judge in Washington, D.C., blocking Trump’s asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border last week, saying the president had exceeded his authority.

The hearing comes as the ACLU and other organizations filed a new round of lawsuits in late June that seek class-action status after the Supreme Court limited the ability of judges to block orders nationwide through other means, known as nationwide injunctions.

The Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of the Trump administration’s birthright citizenship order, but said it could begin to go into effect on July 27, barring further action from the courts.

Under Trump’s plan, birthright citizenship would be limited to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The order also denies citizenship to children whose mothers are temporarily in the United States, including those visiting under the Visa Waiver Program or as tourists, or who are students and whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents.

That is at odds with the widely accepted understanding of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States, with a few minor exceptions.

In a written order issued Thursday, Laplante wrote that the court certified class action status to the following group when issuing the nationwide block of Trump’s birthright citizenship order: “All current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025, where (1) that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

“Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,” Wofsy, the deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement announcing the lawsuit in late June. “The Supreme Court’s decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.”

Devon Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said in the statement at the time: “This executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history, and it would create a permanent, multigenerational subclass of people born in the U.S. but who are denied full rights. No politician can ever decide who among those born in our country is worthy of citizenship — and we will keep fighting to ensure that every child born in the United States has their right to citizenship protected.”

Shortly after taking office in late January, Trump issued an executive order limiting birthright citizenship, which he called “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”

As a result, nearly two dozen states have filed lawsuits arguing that the order violates the 14th Amendment, which says: “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 Supreme Court’s decision last month restricted judges’ authority to block presidential orders nationwide, as opposed to just within their jurisdictions. But it allowed judges to issue such nationwide decisions in class-action cases, leading immigrant rights organizations and others to file several additional legal challenges to the birthright citizenship order that are now moving through the courts.

The last four competitors in the women’s singles tournament at Wimbledon are set as the semifinalists take the court on Thursday. With spots in the championship match on the line, Aryna Sabalenka, Amanda Anisimova, Iga Świątek and Belinda Bencic will take the prestigious Center Court.

Anisimova became the first of that group to punch her ticket to the final with a 6-4, 4-6, 6-4 win over Sabalenka. It was a fantastic, back-and-forth match, but Anisimova came out on top in the end.

Advertisement

The American relied on a fantastic serve, which registered just two aces, but put Sabalenka in tough positions all game. While Anisimova showed signs of frustration and poor body language during the match, she recovered enough to take a huge 4-1 lead in the final set. While Sabalenka battled her back, that gap proved to be too big. Anisimova pulled out a narrow 6-4 win in the final set to advance to her first Wimbledon final in her career.

Whoever wins the second match will be in the same position. None of the four semifinalist had ever reached the final at Wimbledon. Anisimova broke that streak with a win in the first match. Who will join her in the final?

It could be No. 8 Świątek, who has been dominant so far in this tournament, winning 10 of 11 sets decisively in search of her 22nd WTA singles title and a sixth major to add to her four French Open titles, plus one US Open win. Switzerland’s unseeded Bencic has scraped her way to the semis in a tournament that has been marred by upsets. Apart from her first-round win over Alycia Parksa, Bencic has navigated a tightly-contested route to the semis, with two of her matches seeing a third set. She upset No. 7 Mirra Andreeva to advance to Thursday, and currently has a WTA ranking of 34.

How to watch the Wimbledon women’s singles semifinals

Date: Thursday, July 10

Advertisement

Belinda Bencic-Iga Świątek time: 9:40 a.m. ET

Location: Center Court | All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, Wimbledon, London

TV channel: ESPN | ESPN+ | Disney+

Follow along with Yahoo Sports for live updates, highlights and more from the Wimbledon women’s singles semifinals:

LONDON (AP) — Britain and France agreed Thursday to a pilot plan that will send some migrants who cross the English Channel on small boats back to France as the U.K. government struggles to tamp down criticism that it has lost control of the country’s borders.

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron announced the deal Thursday in London. While the initial program a limited number of people, U.K. officials suggest it is a major breakthrough because it sets a precedent that migrants who reach Britain illegally can be returned to France.

“There is no silver bullet here, but with a united effort, new tactics and a new level of intent, we can finally turn the tables,’’ Starmer told reporters at a news conference. “For the very first time, migrants arriving via small boat will be detained and returned to France in short order.”

Under the agreement, Britain will send some of those who cross the Channel in small boats back to France while accepting an equal number migrants who are judged to have legitimate claims to asylum in the U.K.

Starmer had pushed for the arrangement, known as the “one in, one out” deal, in hopes of discouraging people from making the dangerous crossing. It is set to begin in weeks.

Small boat crossings have become a potent political issue in Britain, fueled by pictures of smugglers piling migrants into overcrowded, l eaky inflatable boats on the French coast. So far this year, more than 21,000 people have arrived in the UK in small boats, up 56% from the same period last year.

The crossing is dangerous and many have died.

“I’m totally committed to make it work, because this is clearly our willingness and our common interest,” Macron said. He added that the point of the pilot was a “deterrence” effect.

The measure announced Thursday is part of broader efforts to build closer cooperation with France, as well as countries further up the migrants’ routes from Africa and the Middle East.

British officials have been pushing for French police to intervene more forcefully to stop boats once they have left the shore, and welcomed the sight of officers slashing rubber dinghies with knives in recent days.

Macron said earlier this week that he and Starmer would aim for “tangible results” on an issue that’s “a burden for our two countries.”

An issue that has dogged relations between France and that U.K.

As far back as 2001, the two countries were discussing ways to stop the flow of migrants, though at that time they were focused on people stowing away on trains and trucks entering Britain through the tunnel under the channel.

Over the following years, French authorities cleared out camps near Calais where thousands of migrants gathered before trying to reach Britain. Beefed up security sharply reduced the number of vehicle stowaways, but from about 2018 people-smugglers began offering migrants a new route by sea.

“You see that pattern again and again, where smuggling gangs and migrants try to find new ways to cross from France to the U.K.,” said Mihnea Cuibus, a researcher at the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory. “The authorities crack down on that, and then gradually you see migrants and gangs try to adapt to that. And it becomes a bit of a game of cat and mouse.”

Cooperation on stopping the boats stalled after Britain’s acrimonious split from the European Union in 2020, but in the past few years the countries have struck several agreements that saw the U.K. pay France to increase police and drone patrols of the coast.

Britain’s previous Conservative government came up with a contentious plan in 2022 to deport asylum-seekers arriving by boat to Rwanda. Critics called it unworkable and unethical, and it was scrapped by Starmer soon after he took office in July 2024.

Cuibus said irregular cross-channel migration would likely always be a challenge, but that the measures being discussed by Britain and France could make an impact, “if they’re implemented in the right way.

“But that’s a big if,” he said.

Summit yields deals on defense cooperation plans

The UK-France summit came after a three-day state visit that stressed the longstanding ties between the two countries despite the rupture caused by Britain’s departure from the European Union. Punctuated by carriage rides, banquets and champagne toasts, the two leaders hugged and offered a picture of unity — a step forward to greater cooperation in the future.

The bonhomie was followed by concrete actions. The two leaders sealed deals on defense cooperation, including a pledge to coordinate their nuclear deterrents for the first time.

“Now as Europe’s only nuclear powers and as leaders in NATO, we play a vital role in preserving the peace and security on this continent,” Starmer said.

“From today, our adversaries will know that any extreme threat to this continent would prompt a response from our two nations,” Starmer added.

Progress made on assisting Ukraine

Also Thursday Macron and Starmer visited a military base and dialed in to a planning meeting of the “ coalition of the willing, ” a U.K.- and France-initiated plan for an international force to guarantee a future ceasefire in Ukraine.

Americans attended the meeting for the first time, including retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine and Russia. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who have co-sponsored a new sanctions bill against Russia, were also at the table.

The group agreed to set up its headquarters in Paris to facilitate a rapid deployment after the war ends.

___

Associated Press Writer Brian Melley contributed.