'Unconstitutional': US Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump's Push To End Automatic Birthright Citizenship

A federal judge in Seattle has blocked former President Donald Trump ’s controversial executive order that aimed to deny automatic US citizenship to children born in the country if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.

The ruling, issued by US District Judge John Coughenour, prevents the implementation of the policy for 14 days while the court reviews whether to issue a longer-lasting injunction.

The judge, a Republican appointee of President Ronald Reagan, described Trump’s order as “blatantly unconstitutional” during a packed courtroom hearing on Thursday.

States Push Back on Constitutional Grounds
The order, signed by Trump on Monday, sparked immediate backlash from Democratic-led states, including Washington, Illinois, Arizona, and Oregon. These states argued that the order violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil.

“You are an American citizen if you were born on American soil—period,” said Washington Attorney General Nick Brown. He emphasized that Trump’s policy directly contradicts the Constitution’s citizenship clause, a legal standard upheld for over a century.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, overturned the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which had denied citizenship to enslaved Black people. It established that anyone born in the US, regardless of their parents’ status, is a citizen.

Judge Labels Order ‘Blatantly Unconstitutional’
Judge Coughenour clarified that he found the order indefensible under existing law. “I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional,” he said, addressing a Justice Department lawyer defending Trump’s policy. “It just boggles my mind.”

The judge added that his decision to issue a temporary restraining order was straightforward. “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one,” he said.

The restraining order halts the policy’s nationwide enforcement, preventing the denial of citizenship to children born in the US starting February 19. A follow-up hearing on whether to issue a preliminary injunction is scheduled for February 6.

Widespread Legal Challenges to the Order
Since Trump announced the executive order, at least six lawsuits have been filed to challenge its legality. Most of these were brought by civil rights groups and attorneys general from 22 states.

More than 150,000 children born annually in the US could be denied citizenship if the order is allowed to stand, according to estimates from the Democratic-led states. The policy would also prevent affected children from obtaining Social Security numbers, government benefits, and legal work authorization as they grow older.
“This order creates a situation where babies being born today don’t count as US citizens,” said Washington state Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola during the court hearing.

Trump Administration Vows to Fight Ruling
The Justice Department is preparing to appeal the ruling and oppose any long-term injunction against the policy. Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate defended the executive order in court, calling it constitutional and arguing that blocking its enforcement was “wildly inappropriate.”

A Justice Department spokesperson said the administration remains committed to defending the order. “We look forward to presenting a full merits argument to the court and to the American people, who are desperate to see our nation’s laws enforced,” the spokesperson stated.

Meanwhile, Trump, addressing the ruling, expressed confidence in the policy. “Obviously, we’ll appeal,” he said.

Debate Shifts to Congress and Courts
Beyond the legal battles, the issue has also reignited debate in Congress. On Tuesday, 36 Republican lawmakers introduced legislation to restrict automatic citizenship to children born to US citizens or lawful permanent residents.

However, opponents argue that such measures face steep legal and constitutional hurdles. Democratic officials, including Washington’s Attorney General Brown, remain confident that the courts will uphold the 14th Amendment’s protections.

“I see no reason to expect that this ruling will be overturned on appeal, even if it goes to the Supreme Court,” Brown said. Despite the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which includes three justices appointed by Trump, the historical interpretation of the citizenship clause has been consistent for over 127 years.

A Divisive Policy at the Center of Immigration Debate
Trump’s executive order is part of a broader effort to implement hardline immigration policies, a central theme of his second term. The administration has justified the order as an “integral part” of addressing immigration concerns, particularly at the southern border.

However, critics argue that the policy unfairly targets vulnerable populations and contradicts the principles of equality and fairness embedded in the Constitution. For now, the temporary restraining order marks a significant legal setback for Trump’s immigration agenda, as the broader debate over birthright citizenship continues to play out in courts and public opinion.
 

(With Inputs from Reuters)