In a significant legal development, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, labeling the directive as “blatantly unconstitutional.” The ruling represents an early judicial rebuke to the administration’s renewed efforts to reshape U.S. immigration policy.
Background of the Executive Order
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order seeking to terminate the automatic granting of U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to non-citizen parents. The order specifically targeted children born to undocumented immigrants and those with non-citizen fathers, stipulating that such individuals would no longer receive citizenship if born after the order’s effective date. The administration argued that this move was necessary to address concerns over illegal immigration and the perceived exploitation of the nation’s immigration laws.
Legal Challenge and Judicial Response
The executive order faced immediate legal challenges from multiple states, including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, which filed a lawsuit contending that the directive violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment unequivocally states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This clause has long been interpreted to guarantee citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Presiding over the case in Seattle, Judge Coughenour, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, expressed strong disapproval of the executive order during the proceedings. He questioned the constitutionality of the directive, stating, “I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional. It just boggles my mind.” He further emphasized, “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
Consequently, Judge Coughenour issued a 14-day temporary restraining order, halting the enforcement of the executive order while the legal challenges proceed.
Government’s Position and Planned Appeal
The U.S. Department of Justice, representing the administration, defended the executive order’s legality. DOJ attorney Brett Shumate argued that the president’s action was within constitutional bounds and cautioned that any judicial order blocking it would be “wildly inappropriate.” Following the ruling, President Trump announced plans to appeal the decision, stating, “Obviously we’ll appeal.”
Implications and Reactions
The executive order, if implemented, would have significant implications for immigration policy and the status of thousands of children born in the U.S. annually. Critics argue that such a policy would create a stateless underclass and contravene established constitutional principles. Immigration and civil rights advocates have lauded the court’s decision as a critical check on executive overreach.
Legal experts note that the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S., except for specific exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats. This longstanding precedent presents a substantial obstacle to efforts aimed at ending birthright citizenship through executive action.
As the legal battle unfolds, the nation remains attentive to the potential ramifications for immigration policy and constitutional law. The case is expected to progress through the appellate courts and may ultimately reach the Supreme Court for a definitive resolution.
Santosh Kumar is a Professional SEO and Blogger, With the help of this blog he is trying to share top 10 lists, facts, entertainment news from India and all around the world.