A federal judge in Seattle is preparing to hear initial arguments on Thursday in a multi-state legal action aimed at halting President Donald Trump’s executive order that seeks to revoke the constitutional right to birthright citizenship for children born in the United States, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, an appointee of Ronald Reagan, has organized the hearing in response to a petition from the states of Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington. This particular case is just one of five lawsuits initiated by a total of 22 states, along with several immigrant rights organizations across the nation. These legal cases feature personal accounts from attorneys general who are U.S. citizens by birth and include stories of expectant mothers concerned about the citizenship status of their future children.
The executive order, which Trump signed on Inauguration Day, is scheduled to come into effect on February 19. It may affect a substantial number of individuals born in the U.S., as suggested by one of the lawsuits. In 2022, approximately 255,000 births occurred to citizen children of mothers residing in the country illegally, while around 153,000 births involved children with two undocumented parents, according to the lawsuit filed in Seattle.
In documents submitted on Wednesday, the Trump administration contended that the states lack the legal standing to challenge the order, claiming that no harm has yet occurred and therefore temporary measures are unwarranted. The administration’s legal representatives further stated that the executive order only pertains to individuals born post-February 19, coinciding with its effective date.
The United States is one of roughly 30 nations that uphold birthright citizenship—an established principle known as jus soli or “right of the soil.” Most of these countries are located in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico.
Opponents of the order argue that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship for everyone born or naturalized in the U.S., a perspective that has been upheld by states for over a century. Ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, the amendment 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 order claims that children born to noncitizens are not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction, instructing federal entities not to acknowledge citizenship for those children unless at least one parent holds U.S. citizenship.
The landmark case regarding birthright citizenship occurred in 1898 when the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen, affirming that being born in the country conferred citizenship. After venturing abroad, he confronted barriers to reentry imposed by the federal government under the Chinese Exclusion Act, which questioned his citizenship.
However, advocates for stricter immigration policies have argued that this ruling explicitly applied to children whose parents were both legal immigrants, leaving ambiguity regarding cases involving children born to parents residing in the U.S. illegally.
Trump’s executive order has prompted various attorneys general to share their personal connections to the concept of birthright citizenship. For instance, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general and a citizen by birth, indicated that the lawsuit holds significant personal importance for him.
“There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own,” Tong stated earlier this week.
One lawsuit challenging the executive order features the account of “Carmen,” a pregnant woman who has lived in the U.S. for over 15 years and is not a citizen but has a pending visa application that could enable her to achieve permanent residency. The lawsuit emphasizes that “Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury. It denies them the full membership in U.S. society to which they are entitled.”
