A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship. The ruling, based on constitutional grounds, marks the beginning of a legal battle that could escalate to the Supreme Court.
Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Birthright Citizenship Order
On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship in the United States. The judge described the order as “blatantly unconstitutional” during the hearing in Seattle.
Washington state, alongside Oregon, Arizona, and Illinois, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, requesting a temporary restraining order. The judge granted the request, marking the first major legal challenge to the order.
What the Executive Order Proposes
Signed on January 20, 2025, shortly after Trump’s inauguration, the executive order aims to deny citizenship to babies born in the U.S. if their parents are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The order interprets the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment as excluding such individuals.
Legal experts and state attorneys have called this interpretation unprecedented. Lane Polozola from the Washington Attorney General’s office argued that birthright citizenship is a foundational right protected by the Constitution.
Constitutional and Legal Precedents
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly grants birthright citizenship to individuals born in the U.S. Legal precedent supports this interpretation, including the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that children born on U.S. soil to foreign parents are citizens.
Judge Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, emphasized the constitutional weight of these precedents in his ruling. “It boggles my mind,” he said, criticizing the Trump administration’s arguments.
States’ Arguments Against the Order
Washington and the other suing states argued that the executive order would cause immediate harm by disrupting services for citizens and undermining constitutional rights. Polozola described the potential impact as stripping citizens of their “most foundational right, which is the right to have rights.”
The Department of Justice, representing the Trump administration, argued the order does not take effect until February 19, making the emergency pause unnecessary. However, the states contended that the order’s ramifications justify immediate action.
The Road Ahead: Legal Challenges Await
The case is expected to escalate, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holding jurisdiction. The 9th Circuit, known for its Democratic-leaning judges, may favor the states’ position. However, the case could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where the outcome is less certain given its current conservative majority.
COMMENTS