SEATTLE — President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting U.S. citizenship for children born to parents residing illegally in the U.S. has encountered significant legal challenges, marking the beginning of what may be a lengthy judicial battle. After the initial court hearing in Seattle, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour expressed strong disapproval, labeling the executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional.” Consequently, he issued a temporary injunction, pausing its enforcement while further legal arguments are considered.
To understand the implications, it’s important to clarify the concept of birthright citizenship. This principle asserts that individuals born within a country automatically acquire citizenship there. In the United States, this right is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which states 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.” Ratified in 1868, this amendment was primarily designed to secure citizenship for former slaves following the Civil War.
Critics of unrestricted immigration argue that this provision encourages illegal immigration, as individuals can have children in the U.S. who will be citizens. These children might, in the future, facilitate their parents’ legalization. In response, Trump introduced his executive order on the first day of his second term, which quickly faced legal challenges, including at least five lawsuits from 22 states and various immigrant rights organizations. The case brought by Washington, along with Arizona, Oregon, and Illinois, was the first to be heard.
The temporary restraining order issued by Judge Coughenour halts the U.S. administration from executing Trump’s directive for a fortnight. During this period, both parties will submit additional legal documentation to argue their positions. The judge has arranged another hearing for February 6 to reconsider the potential for a longer-term injunction against the executive order as the case unfolds.
Several other lawsuits against the order are beginning to progress as well. A significant upcoming hearing involves CASA, an immigrant advocacy group based in Maryland, scheduled for February 5 at a federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland. Additionally, a collaborative lawsuit from New Jersey representing 18 states and a challenge in Massachusetts led by the Brazilian Worker Center are still awaiting scheduled hearings.
State attorneys argue that Trump’s order would not only violate the Constitution but also place affected children at risk of deportation, potentially rendering them stateless and stripping them of their rights. This, they argue, would hinder these individuals from participating in economic and civic life within the U.S.
The judge did not elaborate extensively on his reasoning during the hearing; however, his remarks regarding the order’s unconstitutionality and his pointed questions for the DOJ lawyer, Brett Shumate, indicated alignment with the criticisms raised by the states. Coughenour emphasized that the 14th Amendment firmly establishes birthright citizenship, declaring that it does not fall within the president’s power to dictate who can or cannot be a U.S. citizen by birth.
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t recall any case where the question was as clear as this one,” he stated in reference to the legal clarity surrounding the issue.
The Department of Justice responded affirmatively, stating its commitment to robustly defending Trump’s executive order. They expressed anticipation toward presenting a full case to the judiciary and the public, who they claim are eager to see U.S. immigration laws enforced.
Judge Coughenour, who is 84 years old, obtained his law degree from the University of Iowa and has been on the federal bench since 1981 following his appointment by President Ronald Reagan. With over 40 years of experience, he currently serves in senior status while continuing to adjudicate cases. Known for his forthright and sometimes combative judicial style, several figures noted his unmistakable frustration during the recent proceedings.
Nick Brown, the newly elected Attorney General of Washington and a former U.S. attorney in Seattle, remarked on Coughenour’s reaction to the executive order, describing it as an expected assessment of its “absurdity.” He noted similar firsthand experiences with the judge’s evident frustrations over the years.
Among the notable cases over his tenure, Coughenour is perhaps best recognized for presiding over the sentencing of Ahmed Ressam, who was apprehended while attempting to enter the U.S. with explosive materials and plans to attack Los Angeles International Airport. Coughenour’s sentencing decisions in this case faced scrutiny and appeals from federal prosecutors, highlighting instances of judicial contention throughout his extensive career.
