A federal judge in Seattle has issued a temporary halt to President Donald Trump’s executive order that seeks to redefine birthright citizenship, deeming it “blatantly unconstitutional” during an initial hearing centered on a multi-state challenge against the directive.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour was noticeably skeptical of the Justice Department’s justification for the order during the proceedings, frequently interrupting the government’s attorney as he sought clarification on how the executive action could be argued as constitutional. Despite requests from Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate for a full briefing on the issue, Coughenour insisted that the hearing served as a crucial opportunity to present their case.
The temporary restraining order requested by the states of Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington was the first to be heard by a judge and has nationwide implications. This legal challenge forms part of a broader coalition of five lawsuits initiated by 22 states, alongside various immigrant rights groups across the U.S. The lawsuits highlight personal experiences from state attorneys general who possess birthright citizenship and illustrate fears among pregnant women concerning the citizenship status of their children.
Judge Coughenour, appointed by Ronald Reagan, challenged the DOJ representatives, expressing that the executive order was difficult to comprehend. He stated, “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” adding that in his over four decades as a judge, he had not encountered a case that so overtly infringed upon constitutional principles.
Shumate voiced his dissent against the judge’s views, urging for an opportunity to present an argument on the merits of the case rather than having a swift 14-day restraining order imposed on the executive action.
In response to the ruling, the Department of Justice promised to “vigorously defend” the President’s order, claiming it aligns with their interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They expressed eagerness to argue their position further to the court and to the American populace, who they argue are eager for the enforcement of immigration laws.
In representing the states, Washington Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola dismissed the government’s assertion that children born to undocumented parents are not considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. He questioned how such children could be exempt from the jurisdiction of immigration courts and insisted that the executive order would require states to invest substantially in altering healthcare and benefit systems to re-evaluate citizenship applications. “The executive order will have a massive impact on countless citizens across the nation who could lose their citizenship,” Polozola asserted, emphasizing that “Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case.”
The Trump administration posited that the order, which was enacted on Inauguration Day, would apply solely to births occurring after February 19, arguing that this timeframe negated the need for a temporary restraining order.
After the hearing, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown noted that the judge’s impatience with the DOJ’s rationale was entirely expected, given the historical context surrounding the Citizenship Clause, which stemmed from the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857. He reaffirmed that citizenship by birth on American soil has been the established law for generations, stating, “Nothing that the president can do will change that.”
The United States is one of roughly 30 countries that recognize birthright citizenship, a legal concept known as jus soli or “right of the soil,” predominantly practiced throughout the Americas, including in countries like Canada and Mexico.
The lawsuits assert that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to individuals born or naturalized in the U.S., a legal interpretation upheld by states for over a century. Ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, the amendment explicitly states: “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 directive claims that children of noncitizens do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction, thereby instructing federal bodies to deny citizenship to any child lacking at least one citizen parent.
A pivotal case surrounding birthright citizenship dates back to 1898, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, a child born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, affirming his citizenship based on his birthplace. Following international travel, he faced federal obstruction to reentry under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
However, some advocates for stricter immigration measures argue that this precedent only applies to children born to parents who are legal immigrants, raising questions about its applicability to children born to individuals residing in the U.S. illegally.
In light of Trump’s order, attorneys general have shared personal anecdotes connecting them to the issue of birthright citizenship. For instance, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who is a U.S. citizen and the first Chinese American state attorney general, characterized the lawsuit as profoundly personal, stating, “There is no legitimate legal debate on this question,” while lamenting the potential harm inflicted on families like his own due to the executive order.
Among the legal actions aimed at countering the executive order is a case involving a pregnant woman, referred to as “Carmen,” who has been in the U.S. for over 15 years and is seeking permanent residency status through a pending visa application. The lawsuit argues that taking away the “priceless treasure” of citizenship constitutes a severe injury, denying affected individuals the complete inclusion in American society to which they are entitled.
