A federal judge on Thursday issued a temporary restraining order to block President Donald Trump's controversial executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship in the United States. The ruling marks the first significant legal setback in what is expected to be a protracted battle over one of the administration's most polarizing immigration policies.
U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, ruled in favor of four states-Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon-that filed suit to prevent the order from taking effect on February 19. The executive order, signed by Trump on Inauguration Day, seeks to deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.
"I've been on the bench for over four decades," Judge Coughenour said. "I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order."
The lawsuits argue that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the United States, with the exception of children born to foreign diplomats. Ratified in 1868, the amendment was originally intended to reverse the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which held that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens. Its opening clause reads: "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."
The case in Seattle is one of five lawsuits filed nationwide by 22 states and immigrant rights groups challenging the executive order. The lawsuits feature testimonies from state attorneys general, immigrant families, and legal experts who argue that Trump's policy would create a "new, Presidentially-created underclass" of stateless individuals in the United States.
One such plaintiff, identified as "Carmen" in court filings, is a pregnant woman who has lived in the U.S. for over 15 years and has a pending visa application. She fears that her child, expected to be born in the coming weeks, would be denied citizenship under the new policy. "Stripping children of the 'priceless treasure' of citizenship is a grave injury," the lawsuit contends.
Supporters of the executive order, including the Justice Department, argue that the policy is a necessary step to address what they describe as a broken immigration system and the ongoing crisis at the southern border. "Ample historical evidence shows that the children of non-resident aliens are subject to foreign powers-and, thus, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to birthright citizenship," Justice Department litigator Brad Rosenberg wrote in court filings.
Rosenberg also claimed that the states challenging the order lack standing, arguing that their alleged economic harms from the policy are "wholly collateral" to citizenship status. He further accused the courts of misinterpreting the 14th Amendment for over a century.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a plaintiff in one of the lawsuits and a birthright citizen, called the order "dead wrong" and "a direct attack on American families like my own."
The potential ramifications of the policy are vast. According to one lawsuit, the order could impact hundreds of thousands of children born annually to noncitizen parents in the U.S. In 2022, approximately 255,000 children were born to mothers living in the U.S. illegally, and an additional 153,000 were born to parents where both lacked legal status.
States argue that the policy would cause significant financial harm, including the loss of federal funding for programs like Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). "Absent a temporary restraining order, children born in the Plaintiff States will soon be rendered undocumented, subject to removal or detention, and many stateless," the plaintiffs' filing states.
Despite the ruling, the legal battle over birthright citizenship is far from over. The case is expected to escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices will ultimately determine the constitutionality of Trump's order. The Justice Department vowed to continue defending the executive action, stating, "We look forward to presenting a full merits argument to the Court and to the American people."
