The Wimbledon final is set. American Amanda Anisimova will take on Poland’s Iga Świątek on Saturday. The winner will walk away with the first Wimbledon title of their careers.

Anisimova punched her ticket to the final first with a 6-4, 4-6, 6-4 win over Aryna 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 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.

The second match of the day proved to be far less dramatic, as Świątek dominated Belinda Bencic 6-2, 6-0 to advance to the final. Świątek played a phenomenal match and looked absolutely determined to reach the final at Wimbledon for the first time in her career.

Her serve was dominant, registering two aces and contributing to Świątek’s 26 winners. While she made more unforced errors compared to Bencic, Świątek excelled everywhere else. She was 6-for-6 on net points and 5-for-5 on break points.

While Świątek will hold the advantage in the final, Anisimova could prove to be a difficult opponent. The two have never faced each other in a singles match, which could provide Anisimova with an opportunity to surprise Świątek in the final.

Catch up below on all the action from Thursday’s Wimbledon women’s semifinals:

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.