Summary:
- A federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, citing it as “blatantly unconstitutional.
- The order seeks to restrict automatic citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or green card holders, challenging the 14th Amendment’s long-standing interpretation.
- Four states and civil rights groups argue the policy would harm children, render many stateless, and cause significant financial losses for federally funded programs.
- The case is expected to escalate to the Supreme Court as part of a broader legal battle over immigration and constitutional rights.
A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s recent executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, marking the first significant legal challenge to the controversial directive. The ruling, issued by Senior U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour on Thursday, prevents the order from taking effect for 14 days while further legal proceedings unfold.
The executive order, signed by Trump shortly after his inauguration earlier this week, seeks to limit automatic citizenship to children born in the United States only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. This move challenges the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, with few exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.
Judge Coughenour, a Reagan appointee with over four decades on the bench, described the executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional.” During the hearing, he remarked, “I cannot recall another case where the issue was as clear as this one.” He further questioned the legal reasoning behind the administration’s decision, expressing disbelief that attorneys could argue in favor of its constitutionality.
The lawsuit leading to the temporary restraining order was filed by four Democratic-led states—Washington, Oregon, Illinois, and Arizona—and is part of a broader legal pushback against the policy. In total, 22 states and various civil rights organizations have initiated legal actions challenging Trump’s directive. The plaintiffs argue that the executive order violates constitutional principles and would cause significant harm to states and individuals alike.
According to court filings, if implemented, the order would render many children born in the United States stateless or undocumented. This could lead to severe consequences such as loss of access to Social Security numbers, voting rights, and lawful employment opportunities. Moreover, states contend that they would face substantial financial losses due to disruptions in federally funded programs like Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program).
The Justice Department defended Trump’s executive action as a necessary step to address what it described as a “broken immigration system.” DOJ attorney Brad Rosenberg argued that courts have misinterpreted the 14th Amendment for over a century and that children of non-resident aliens are not constitutionally entitled to birthright citizenship. However, Judge Coughenour dismissed these arguments during Thursday’s hearing.
The principle of birthright citizenship is deeply rooted in American history and law. Ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was intended to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved individuals. Its language—“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States”—has been upheld by landmark Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed citizenship for children born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Critics of Trump’s order argue that it undermines this foundational principle and represents an unprecedented attempt by a sitting president to unilaterally reinterpret constitutional rights. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin called it “an assault on the rule of law” and emphasized that “Presidents have broad powers but are not kings.”
The case is widely expected to escalate through higher courts and could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. For now, Judge Coughenour’s temporary restraining order halts any immediate enforcement of Trump’s directive while further legal arguments are prepared.
This development underscores a contentious start to Trump’s new term in office and signals an intense legal battle ahead over immigration policy and constitutional interpretation.
Source: NBC News
