Federal Judge Halts Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

A Seattle-based federal judge has temporarily blocked Donald Trump’s first major executive order since returning to office, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” The order aimed to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States, sparking significant legal and political debates.

What is Birthright Citizenship in the US?

The concept of birthright citizenship allows nearly everyone born on US soil to automatically acquire citizenship, regardless of their parents’ legal status. This principle is rooted in jus soli, a Latin term meaning “right of the soil,” which has its origins in English common law.

Historical Context

• The 14th Amendment: Ratified in 1868, the amendment was originally intended to grant citizenship to freed slaves. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
• Exceptions: Children of foreign diplomats or enemy occupiers do not qualify under this rule.

Currently, the US is one of about 30 countries worldwide, most of which are in the Americas, that uphold this principle.

Trump’s Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship

After resuming office, Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting birthright citizenship, calling it an “absolutely ridiculous” concept. Trump argued that the US is the “only country” with such a rule (a claim that is factually incorrect).

Key Provisions of the Order

• The executive order states that children born in the US after February 19, 2025, will no longer be recognized as citizens if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.

It denies such children access to:

• Citizenship rights.
• Social Security numbers.
• Government benefits.
• Legal work opportunities as they grow up.

Trump justified the policy by arguing that children of non-citizens are not under US jurisdiction and, therefore, do not qualify for citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

If enforced, the policy could strip citizenship from over 150,000 newborns annually, drastically impacting families and creating widespread legal and social challenges.

Legal Challenges and Opposition

The order has faced fierce resistance. At least six lawsuits have already been filed, alleging that the policy directly violates the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

Four Democratic-led states, Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, initiated the first legal challenge, arguing that the order is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Key Arguments Against the Order

• The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the US.
• The executive order disregards long-standing legal interpretations upheld by the Supreme Court.
• Critics argue that such a policy would create a stateless population within the US, denying fundamental rights to children born in the country.

Judge John Coughenour’s Ruling

Seattle-based federal judge John Coughenour, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), effectively halting the enforcement of Trump’s directive.

Judge Coughenour’s Remarks

• He labeled the executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional” and expressed disbelief at the administration’s legal defense.
  “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one,” said Coughenour, adding, “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
• During the hearing, Coughenour grilled Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate, asking if he personally believed the order to be constitutional.

The judge emphasized that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause leaves no room for ambiguity, effectively nullifying Trump’s claim that children of non-citizens are excluded from constitutional protections.

The Justice Department’s Position

Attorney Brett Shumate, representing the Justice Department (DOJ), defended the executive order, calling it constitutional.

DOJ’s Arguments

• Shumate argued that the administration’s legal rationale had not been previously litigated and deserved judicial review.
• He also claimed that issuing a temporary restraining order was unnecessary since the policy’s provisions wouldn’t take effect until February 19, 2025.

Despite Shumate’s defense, Judge Coughenour signed the restraining order mid-hearing. The DOJ later released a statement, pledging to “vigorously defend” the order, stating that it “correctly interprets the 14th Amendment.”

Broader Implications

Trump’s executive order has reignited debates over immigration, citizenship rights, and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. If upheld, the policy could lead to:

• The creation of a stateless population within the US.
• Significant legal challenges for families and children.
• A potential shift in how citizenship is determined in the US, with far-reaching consequences.

The legal battle over the order is expected to escalate, potentially reaching the Supreme Court, where it could set a landmark precedent for future immigration and citizenship policies.

Summary of the News

Category	Details
Why in News?	A Seattle-based federal judge temporarily blocked Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to restrict birthright citizenship in the US, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
What is Birthright Citizenship?	– Grants automatic citizenship to almost everyone born in the US, regardless of parents’ legal status.- Based on jus soli (Latin: “right of the soil”).- Guaranteed under the 14th Amendment (1868). – Exceptions: Children of foreign diplomats or enemy occupiers.
Provisions of Trump’s Order	– Children born in the US after February 19, 2025, will not receive citizenship if neither parent is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident.- Denied access to:  – Citizenship rights  – Social Security numbers  – Government benefits  – Legal work opportunities.- Affects over 150,000 newborns annually.
Trump’s Justification	– Called birthright citizenship “ridiculous” and claimed the US is the “only country” with such a rule (incorrect; around 30 countries follow jus soli).- Argued that children of non-citizens are not under US jurisdiction per the 14th Amendment.
Legal Challenges	– Filed by four Democratic-led states: Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon.- Alleged the order violates the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.- Six lawsuits already filed.
Judge’s Ruling	– Judge John Coughenour, appointed by Ronald Reagan, issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).- Called the order “blatantly unconstitutional.”- Criticized the Justice Department for defending the policy, stating the 14th Amendment’s language is clear.
Justice Department’s Position	– Argued the executive order is constitutional.- Claimed the order deserves judicial review and the TRO is unnecessary before the order takes effect. – Pledged to “vigorously defend” the policy.
Broader Implications	– May create a stateless population in the US.- Raises questions about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.- Legal battles could reach the Supreme Court, potentially setting a landmark precedent.- Could significantly alter citizenship and immigration policies.