A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, calling the policy “blatantly unconstitutional.” The order, which would deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents, has led to multiple lawsuits across the country.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, presided over the first hearing in a four-state lawsuit challenging the executive action. During the hearing, Coughenour repeatedly criticized the administration’s arguments, stating, “I’ve been on the bench for more than four decades, and I’ve never seen a case where the action challenged is so clearly unconstitutional.”
What Does the Order Say?
Signed on his first day back in office, Trump’s executive order aims to end automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and individuals in the country legally but temporarily, such as tourists, students, or temporary workers. The policy was set to take effect on February 19 and could have impacted hundreds of thousands of children born each year.
The lawsuit, brought by attorneys general from Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington, argues that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. Legal precedent, including the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, has long interpreted the amendment to apply to children of noncitizens.
During the hearing, Judge Coughenour interrupted Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate several times to challenge the administration’s reasoning. Shumate requested more time to provide a full briefing on the case, but the judge rejected the request, stating the hearing was the opportunity to address the constitutional issues.
“This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour said.
Legal Challenges
The lawsuit is one of several filed by 22 states and immigrant advocacy groups seeking to block the executive order. The cases highlight the potential harm to children who could be left stateless and denied federal benefits.
One case involves a pregnant woman, identified as “Carmen,” who has lived in the U.S. for over 15 years. Carmen fears her child will not be recognized as a U.S. citizen under the new policy, despite her pending visa application that could lead to permanent residency.
The executive order challenges over a century of legal precedent supporting birthright citizenship in the U.S., a principle rooted in jus soli, or “right of the soil.” The 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Supporters of Trump’s order argue that the amendment does not apply to children of noncitizens, particularly undocumented immigrants. However, legal scholars point to the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which affirmed the citizenship of a child born to Chinese immigrants in San Francisco despite restrictive immigration laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act.
What’s Next?
The temporary restraining order halts the policy’s implementation for now, but the legal battle is expected to continue. With 18 other states and multiple advocacy groups filing similar lawsuits, the issue could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
For more info, check out the Boundless guide on birthright citizenship.