A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order to block former President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, describing the policy as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Judge John Coughenour, a Seattle-based Reagan appointee, ruled in favor of a motion filed by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and three other Democratic-led states. The restraining order halts the implementation of the policy for 14 days, allowing more time for legal arguments to be presented.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades, and I cannot recall a case where the legal question was as unequivocally clear as this,” Coughenour stated during the hearing. The judge criticized the legal rationale behind the executive order, questioning, “Where were the lawyers when this was drafted?” and expressing disbelief that such a measure could be deemed constitutional.
Constitutional Violation at the Core
The Democratic-led states argued that Trump’s executive order directly violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Washington state attorney Lane Polozola emphasized the immediate harm caused by the policy, stating, “Babies are being born today, both here and across the country, with a cloud of uncertainty over their citizenship.”
Polozola further argued that children denied citizenship under the executive order would face long-term negative consequences, adding that the apparent intent of the policy was to create such harm. The states also raised concerns about the financial and logistical burdens on state programs, as children excluded from birthright citizenship would be cut off from federal benefits typically granted to citizens.
Trump Administration Defends the Order
The Trump administration defended the executive order by interpreting the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause to exclude children of undocumented immigrants and even children of lawfully present individuals lacking permanent legal status. Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate urged the court to delay blocking the policy, arguing that it was too early to make a “snap judgment on the merits.”
Shumate acknowledged ongoing harm but requested more time for briefing on the policy, noting that other cases challenging the executive order were progressing at a slower pace.
Nationwide Legal Challenges
The executive order has faced widespread opposition, with multiple lawsuits filed by Democratic attorneys general, immigrant rights groups, and individual plaintiffs.
In Maryland, a federal judge is set to hear arguments from immigrant rights groups and expectant mothers whose children could be affected by the order. Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg noted during a status conference that federal agencies had not yet begun implementing enforcement measures, citing the recent issuance of the order during the transitional period between administrations.
ALSO READ: Trump Vows New Sanctions and Tariffs on Russia to End Ukraine War
Similarly, a New Hampshire federal court will hold a hearing on February 10 to consider a motion by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy groups seeking to temporarily block the policy.
What’s at Stake
The executive order, signed just three days prior, has sparked a fierce legal and political debate. The implications of ending birthright citizenship are monumental, potentially reshaping U.S. immigration policy and its constitutional foundation. For now, the restraining order prevents the policy from taking effect, but the legal battle is far from over, with critical hearings scheduled in the coming weeks.