A federal judge in Seattle has placed a temporary halt on President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting U.S. citizenship for children born in the country to parents who are undocumented immigrants. During an initial hearing in a multi-state lawsuit against the order, the judge described it as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees citizenship to individuals born on American soil, a right established in 1868 primarily to benefit former slaves following the Civil War. Shortly after taking the oath for his second term, Trump signed the contentious executive order, which would deny citizenship to children born after February 19 to parents living illegally in the U.S. Moreover, the order would prevent federal agencies from recognizing these children as citizens or accepting any state-issued documents that acknowledge their citizenship.
The executive order has spurred immediate legal challenges nationwide, with a coalition of 22 states and various immigrant rights organizations bringing at least five different lawsuits. A case initiated by Washington, Arizona, Oregon, and Illinois was the first to be heard in court.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who has served on the bench for over 40 years, remarked on the clarity of the legal issues presented by the case. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” he stated to a representative from the Justice Department during the hearing.
As a result of Thursday’s ruling, the administration is prohibited from enforcing the executive order for a period of 14 days while the involved parties present additional arguments regarding the legality of Trump’s order. Judge Coughenour has scheduled a follow-up hearing on February 6 to determine if the order should be blocked indefinitely as the legal process moves forward.
Coughenour, appointed during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, questioned Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate about the constitutionality of the executive order. The judge expressed skepticism about how a legal professional could assert that the order was constitutional, to which Shumate responded affirmatively, asserting his belief in the order’s legality. He emphasized that the legal arguments being made have not been previously litigated and argued that a temporary restraining order was unnecessary since it would expire before the executive order took effect.
The Department of Justice later announced that it would “vigorously defend” Trump’s executive order, asserting that it appropriately interprets the 14th Amendment. They expressed eagerness to present their full arguments in front of the court and to the public, who they claim wish to see immigration laws enforced.
Birthright citizenship, known as jus soli, is a principle followed by roughly 30 nations, primarily in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico. The 14th Amendment was ratified to secure citizenship for former slaves and free African Americans and maintains that “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.”
Trump’s executive order contends that children born to noncitizen parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., which would exclude them from citizenship. However, Lane Polozola, an assistant attorney general for Washington state, argued against this reasoning, pointing out that both undocumented immigrants and their children are still under U.S. law and must adhere to its regulations. He emphasized the urgency for a restraining order, as the executive order would compel states to incur costs in adjusting healthcare and benefits systems, thereby affecting millions of citizens.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown expressed no surprise at Judge Coughenour’s critical view of the Justice Department’s stance, especially considering the historical context of the Citizenship Clause, which stems from a notorious decision by the Supreme Court in 1857 denying citizenship to African Americans. He reiterated the longstanding principle that any child born in the U.S. is a citizen, a fact that cannot be altered by presidential decree.
Past Supreme Court rulings, including a significant case from 1898 involving Wong Kim Ark, affirm citizenship for those born in the U.S., including children of immigrants. However, some advocates for stricter immigration laws have questioned whether this ruling applies to children of undocumented immigrants, fueling ongoing debates.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong shared his personal investment in the case, emphasizing that the issue of birthright citizenship is not merely a legal matter but one that impacts families directly. Ultimately, he concluded that Coughenour’s ruling was the right one in safeguarding the principle of citizenship in America.
