Edit Visa & Immigration

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

A federal district court in Seattle became the first battleground in a legal war over President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship. The executive order, which sought to restrict automatic U.S. citizenship to children born only to U.S. citizens and green card holders, was blocked temporarily by Senior U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour on Thursday.

 

Temporary Block Issued

Judge Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) after hearing just 25 minutes of arguments, halting the policy for 14 days. Further hearings are expected to determine whether a preliminary injunction should permanently block the order while the case moves forward. Calling the order "blatantly unconstitutional," Coughenour, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, expressed his clear opposition to the policy.

 

The Constitutional Debate

The controversy centers on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has long guaranteed citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, except the children of foreign diplomats. This principle was intended to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to African Americans. The amendment's language—"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"—is now at the heart of the debate.

 

The states challenging the executive order argue that it undermines this constitutional guarantee. “President Trump and the federal government now seek to impose a modern version of Dred Scott,” their court filings assert. They maintain that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally change citizenship rules.

 

Impact on States and Residents

The case involves four states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—that argue the executive order would cause significant financial and administrative harm. If implemented, the policy would:

 

Disqualify children born to non-citizen parents from U.S. citizenship.

Render affected children undocumented and stateless, subjecting them to deportation.

Deny these children Social Security numbers, lawful employment, voting rights, and eligibility for federal programs like Medicaid and CHIP. The plaintiffs argue that these outcomes would create a “Presidentially-created underclass” in the U.S., jeopardizing the stability of millions of families.
 

Federal Government’s Position

The Justice Department, defending the executive order, argues that the president has the authority to address what it describes as a broken immigration system. Federal attorneys contend that courts have misinterpreted the 14th Amendment for over 100 years and that children of non-resident aliens are not entitled to automatic citizenship because they are “subject to foreign powers.” They also argue that states have no legal standing to sue based on economic harms tied to federal citizenship policies.

Justice Department litigator Brad Rosenberg wrote that historical evidence supports this view and asserted that the federal government would “vigorously defend” the order, which it claims correctly interprets the Constitution.

 

What’s Next?

The case is likely to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, given its far-reaching implications. For now, the TRO prevents the executive order from taking effect, offering a temporary reprieve for affected individuals and states.

 

This lawsuit is just one of five filed by Democratic attorneys general and immigrant rights groups challenging the executive order. A protracted legal fight is expected as courts grapple with questions of constitutional interpretation, executive authority, and the rights of those born on U.S. soil.

Judge Coughenour’s order underscores the judiciary’s role in checking executive overreach, especially on matters tied to constitutional guarantees. The final outcome will likely shape the future of birthright citizenship and could redefine immigration law in the United States.