A federal judge in Seattle is preparing to hear a case regarding President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, which aims to end citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants. This hearing is scheduled for Thursday and arrives after another ruling where a Maryland judge imposed a nationwide pause on a related case concerning the rights of immigrants and pregnant women.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour will oversee this hearing with representatives from the Trump administration, four states that are challenging the order, and a group advocating for immigrant rights that supports a class of expectant mothers. This legal challenge comes just after a Maryland judge granted an injunction to suspend the enforcement of a similar directive, which could affect many expectant parents in the U.S.
Currently, the executive order is on hold. Judge Coughenour previously deemed it “blatantly unconstitutional” and facilitated a temporary restraining order against it for 14 days. A subsequent ruling by U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman has extended this hold until the case can be fully resolved unless the Trump administration successfully appeals the decision.
In the upcoming hearing, Judge Coughenour will consider whether to issue a long-term injunction similar to the one provided in Maryland. During a previous session, he remarked that this case is particularly notable, highlighting its clarity compared to other cases he has encountered in his decades of judicial experience.
Twenty-two states and various organizations have joined forces in legal action against the president’s birthright citizenship order. The case before Judge Coughenour involves four states: Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington, which is coupled with a lawsuit from the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. Additionally, 18 states led by Iowa have submitted a brief supporting the administration’s perspective.
A separate hearing is slated for Friday in Massachusetts, involving a different coalition of 18 states led by New Jersey, which is also contesting the order.
The lawsuits fundamentally revolve around the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868 following the Civil War. The amendment asserts that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The plaintiffs contend that this language guarantees citizenship to children born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Conversely, the Trump administration argues that children of noncitizens do not fall under the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause and therefore do not qualify for citizenship. The government contends that the Constitution does not provide for citizenship for the offspring of individuals who violate immigration laws.
Lawyers for the states argue otherwise, citing historical precedence reaffirmed in the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. This ruling established that the only exceptions to automatic citizenship for those born in the U.S. are children of foreign diplomats and certain specific conditions involving conflict or foreign allegiance.
The United States stands among approximately 30 countries that practice birthright citizenship, known as jus soli, which allows individuals born on national soil to automatically gain citizenship, a concept prevalent mainly across the Americas, including Canada and Mexico.
