A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship.
U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour issued the ruling on Thursday, granting a request by Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and Illinois to halt the controversial order.
This decision marks the first step in what is expected to be an ongoing legal battle over the order’s constitutionality.
Judge Coughenour sharply criticized the order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” During the hearing, he expressed disbelief, questioning how anyone in the legal profession could assert the order’s constitutionality.
The lawsuit, filed by state attorneys general, challenges the executive order, which was signed shortly after Trump’s inauguration. The order sought to revoke birthright citizenship for children born to non-U.S. citizen parents.
The plaintiffs argue that the order undermines the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S.
Attorney General Nick Brown, alongside peers from Oregon, Arizona, and Illinois, argued that the order would lead to significant harm to their states by disrupting legal and social systems and reducing federal funding.
They also sought a 14-day temporary restraining order to prevent the executive action from taking effect nationwide.
In Oregon, Attorney General Dan Rayfield celebrated the ruling, describing it as a “huge victory” for the state’s children. “This temporary restraining order preserves the status quo for now,” Rayfield said. Meanwhile, similar lawsuits are being pursued in Massachusetts, where 18 other states have filed challenges.
Trump’s executive order focuses on limiting birthright citizenship, specifically the interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment. The order asserts that certain individuals born in the U.S. should not be granted citizenship, as they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. However, critics like Washington’s attorney Lane Polozola argue that this interpretation is flawed, pointing out that children of undocumented immigrants are still governed by U.S. law.
Legal precedents strongly support birthright citizenship, with the U.S. Supreme Court affirming the principle in the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark.
The case established that individuals born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents were citizens.
While the order is set to take effect on February 19, the judge’s decision delays its implementation. Brown emphasized the importance of this initial step, noting that the legal process is just beginning.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over this case, is expected to hear further arguments, and the matter could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
In court filings, experts and community leaders warned that the order could have widespread consequences, including the creation of a “permanent underclass” excluded from U.S. citizenship, and its potential impact on social services and federal funding in the states challenging the order.
Republican lawmakers in Congress have also introduced legislation aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, further intensifying the debate over the issue.
The legal battle is poised to continue as states and advocates push back against the administration’s efforts to reshape immigration policy.
Leave a Comment