A federal judge has temporarily halted the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at limiting automatic birthright citizenship in the United States, labeling the directive as “blatantly unconstitutional.” The ruling came from U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, based in Seattle, who issued a temporary restraining order at the request of four Democratic-led states: Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon.
The executive order, signed by Trump on his first day back in office, sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. This ruling marks a significant legal challenge to Trump’s hardline immigration policies, which have been a focal point of his second term.
During the hearing, Judge Coughenour expressed disbelief at the legal arguments presented by the Justice Department in defense of the order. “I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional,” he remarked, emphasizing the clarity of the constitutional issues at stake. He further stated, “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” reflecting his long experience on the bench.
The states involved in the lawsuit argued that Trump’s executive order violates the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Washington state Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola highlighted the implications of the order, stating, “Under this order, babies being born today don’t count as U.S. citizens.”
In response, Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate defended the executive order, asserting its constitutionality and labeling the judicial intervention as “wildly inappropriate.” However, Judge Coughenour swiftly signed the temporary restraining order before Shumate could fully articulate his position.
The temporary order will remain in effect for 14 days while the judge considers whether to issue a longer-lasting preliminary injunction. A hearing on this matter is scheduled for February 6.
If Trump’s order were to be enforced, it could result in over 150,000 newborns being denied citizenship each year, according to estimates from the Democratic-led states. The implications of the order extend beyond citizenship, as it would also prevent these children from obtaining Social Security numbers and accessing various government benefits.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown expressed confidence in the strength of the ruling, stating, “You are an American citizen if you were born on American soil – period. Nothing that the president can do will change that.” He also indicated skepticism about the Justice Department’s chances of overturning the ruling on appeal, even if the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority that includes three justices appointed by Trump.
Since the signing of the executive order, multiple lawsuits have been filed against it, primarily by civil rights organizations and Democratic attorneys general from 22 states. The legal challenges are rooted in a long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has been upheld since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling 127 years ago that affirmed citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, aiming to secure citizenship rights for formerly enslaved individuals, overturning the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857 that denied constitutional protections to Black people.
In a brief filed late Wednesday, the Justice Department characterized Trump’s executive order as a crucial component of his administration’s efforts to reform the immigration system and address ongoing challenges at the southern border. Additionally, 36 Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives have introduced legislation to restrict automatic citizenship to children born only to American citizens or lawful permanent residents.
As the legal battle unfolds, the implications of this ruling could have far-reaching effects on immigration policy and the interpretation of citizenship rights in the United States.
