SEATTLE — The executive order issued by President Donald Trump, aimed at denying U.S. citizenship to children born to parents residing in the country illegally, faced significant legal scrutiny as it entered the courtroom on Thursday. The initial proceedings did not bode well for the administration.
As a lawyer from the Justice Department began to outline the order’s rationale in front of U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, it became clear that the judge held strong reservations. He characterized the order as “blatantly unconstitutional” and took immediate action to impose a temporary block on its implementation while further legal arguments were prepared.
### Understanding Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship refers to the legal principle granting citizenship to individuals born within a country’s borders. In the United States, this principle is anchored in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which clarifies that anyone born or naturalized in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, provided they are subject to the jurisdiction of the country. This amendment was established in 1868 to safeguard the citizenship rights of formerly enslaved individuals following the Civil War.
Some critics of unrestricted immigration contend that this principle incentivizes illegal immigration since individuals may believe that having children in the U.S. guarantees those children citizenship, potentially enabling family members to obtain lawful permanent residency later on. In an effort to address concerns related to unlawful immigration, Trump issued this executive order shortly after commencing his second term. Its introduction immediately prompted multiple legal challenges across the nation, with more than 22 states and various immigrant rights organizations filing at least five lawsuits against it. The suit filed by Washington, Arizona, Oregon, and Illinois marked the first to receive a court hearing.
### Upcoming Legal Proceedings
The recent ruling from Judge Coughenour is classified as a temporary restraining order that prohibits enforcement of Trump’s order on a national scale for the next 14 days. During this period, both parties are expected to submit additional arguments regarding the order’s legal standing. A subsequent hearing has been scheduled for February 6 to deliberate on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued, which would restrict the executive order’s implementation for the duration of the case.
In addition to the ongoing proceedings in Seattle, separate legal actions are also progressing in various states. For instance, a hearing will take place on February 5 in Maryland, where CASA, a nonprofit organization supporting at-risk youth, is challenging the order. Other lawsuits, such as one led by New Jersey representing 18 states, along with individual challenges in Massachusetts, currently do not have hearings set.
The states participating in the lawsuits argue that Trump’s executive order infringes upon the rights of children affected by it, placing them at risk of deportation and possibly rendering them stateless. They contend that the directive would unjustly strip these children of their citizenship rights and obstruct their engagement in both economic and civic activities.
### Judge’s Reaction to the Executive Order
During Thursday’s proceedings, Judge Coughenour refrained from elaborating on his rationale, but his description of the order as “blatantly unconstitutional,” along with his probing inquiries directed at the Justice Department’s attorney, underscored his alignment with the plaintiffs’ arguments. The states firmly maintain that the guarantee of birthright citizenship is a well-established tenet of the 14th Amendment, asserting that the president does not possess the authority to dictate who qualifies for citizenship at birth.
Coughenour remarked on the clarity of the case, stating, “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is,” while addressing the Justice Department attorney. Following the hearing, the Department of Justice declared its intention to vigorously uphold the president’s order, expressing eagerness to present a comprehensive legal argument to both the court and the public, who it claims are eager for immigration laws to be enforced.
### Background on the Judge
Judge Coughenour, 84 years old, has a lengthy career in law, having earned his degree from the University of Iowa in 1966. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, he has served as a federal judge for over 40 years, currently functioning in a semi-retired capacity while still hearing cases. Known for his tough and independent judicial style, he has garnered a reputation for being sometimes cantankerous.
After the hearing, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, a former U.S. attorney for Seattle, expressed no surprise at Coughenour’s reaction, calling attention to the “absurdity” of the executive order. He noted the judge’s frustrations were palpable and emphasized the straightforwardness of the legal issues raised by the case.
Among the many cases handled by Coughenour, one of the most notable involved the “millennium bomber,” Ahmed Ressam, who was apprehended in 1999 while attempting to enter the U.S. with explosives aimed at carrying out an attack in Los Angeles. This case was marked by contentious exchanges between Coughenour and federal prosecutors regarding sentencing, with Coughenour ultimately imposing a penalty that was less than what prosecutors pursued.
