- Judge John Coughenour halts Trump’s executive order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
- The 14th Amendment ensures citizenship for almost all individuals born in the US.
- Four states argued the order would harm residents and violate constitutional rights.
- Trump’s administration plans to appeal the decision, likely taking the case to the Supreme Court.
- Legal experts claim the issue can only be resolved through a constitutional amendment.
In a significant ruling on Thursday, 23 January, a federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked former President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship in the United States.
US District Court Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order, deeming the executive order “blatantly unconstitutional.” The decision came after a 25-minute hearing during which the judge expressed strong doubts about the administration’s legal rationale.
The executive order, which sought to deny citizenship to children born to undocumented migrants or temporary visa holders, faced immediate legal challenges. Four states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—filed a lawsuit, arguing that the order violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Legal and Political Implications
Trump’s executive order aimed to fundamentally alter birthright citizenship. The policy would have denied citizenship to children born on or after February 19 if their parents were undocumented migrants or temporary visa holders.
According to legal filings from the Department of Justice (DoJ), federal agencies were reportedly preparing to enforce the order by withholding critical documents, such as passports, from individuals deemed ineligible for citizenship. However, Judge Coughenour’s ruling has temporarily halted these plans.
During the hearing, the judge expressed skepticism about the executive order’s constitutionality, criticizing the legal arguments presented by Trump’s administration. “It boggles my mind,” Judge Coughenour remarked, questioning the legal foundation of the order.
The restraining order halts enforcement for 14 days, allowing the court to review the broader legal implications.
State and Legal Opposition
The states challenging the executive order argue that it would cause immediate and irreparable harm to their residents. The 14th Amendment, they contend, explicitly grants citizenship to individuals born on US soil, with limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.
Lane Polozola, a lawyer representing Washington state, emphasized the historical significance of the 14th Amendment. He argued that the executive order would reverse progress made during the post-Civil War era, stating, “It brings us back to one of our darkest chapters.”
The lawsuit further highlighted the potential consequences for affected individuals. Residents stripped of their citizenship could face detention, deportation, and even statelessness. Such outcomes, the states argue, would violate constitutional protections and disrupt countless lives.
Historical and Legal Context
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, was designed to secure citizenship rights for freed slaves following the Civil War. It states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
While Trump’s administration argued that the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants, constitutional scholars widely dispute this interpretation. Legal experts assert that the amendment’s language guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born on US soil.
Without a formal amendment to the Constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress and approval by three-fourths of the states, altering birthright citizenship is unlikely. Experts suggest that the courts, rather than executive actions, will ultimately resolve the issue.
Broader Legal Challenges
This lawsuit is one of several targeting Trump’s executive order. Eighteen other Democratic-led states, along with Washington, D.C., and the city of San Francisco, have filed separate challenges. Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has pledged to fight the order, arguing that it undermines constitutional protections.
Despite the mounting opposition, the Trump administration plans to appeal the ruling. Lawyers for the federal government anticipate that the case will eventually reach the US Supreme Court, setting the stage for a major legal battle.
The temporary restraining order underscores the ongoing tensions between executive authority and constitutional protections. While Trump’s administration views the executive order as a step toward addressing what it calls a “broken immigration system,” opponents argue that it undermines fundamental rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
As the legal battles unfold, the case highlights the broader challenges of balancing immigration reform with constitutional principles. For now, the ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s critical role in upholding the rule of law.