A federal judge in Seattle, Washington has thwarted a key part of President Donald Trump’s immigration policy by putting a temporary halt on an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders.
Judge John C. Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on January 23, 2025, preventing the enforcement of the executive order for a period of two weeks. During the hearing, Coughenour expressed unequivocal certainty about the unconstitutionality of the order, asserting that he “could not remember a case where the question was as clear” and that he “could not understand how any lawyer could claim it was constitutional.”
The lawsuit against the order was initiated by four states – Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. They contended that the order contravened the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which they argue unequivocally grants citizenship to all individuals born on American soil. When Trump administration lawyers suggested that the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” allows for the exclusion of children born to undocumented immigrants, the judge rejected this interpretation. State attorneys presented evidence that the order would precipitate “immediate and irreparable harm” by potentially generating a group of stateless residents.
Trump signed the executive order on his first day back in office. It aimed to nullify the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship, regardless of the immigration status of the parents. The order instructed U.S. agencies to deny citizenship to children born to non-citizens or individuals without permanent legal residence. The order was to be implemented from February 19.
In the course of the proceedings, Judge Coughenour emphasized the immediate consequences, pointing out that “Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case” and warned of “long-term substantial negative impacts” on children who are denied citizenship.
The Justice Department’s plea for more time to prepare a comprehensive briefing met opposition from state attorneys. They argued that any delay would necessitate immediate, extensive changes to federal program eligibility criteria. The states provided evidence showing that the order would necessitate comprehensive alterations to existing citizenship verification systems and social service programs, thereby creating significant administrative challenges and potential service disruptions.
An extensive legal challenge has been initiated in Massachusetts, uniting 18 states, the District of Columbia, and the City of San Francisco. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin is leading this coalition. They argue that the order infringes upon the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The legal filing outlines how the directive would impact hundreds of thousands of American children by depriving them of citizenship rights and access to critical federal programs. The coalition has sought immediate relief through a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also launched a legal challenge on behalf of expectant parents who are uncertain about the future citizenship status of their children. Their lawsuit includes testimony from a couple who sought asylum in the U.S. in 2023, underlining concerns about the creation of a permanent class of residents denied basic rights. The ACLU’s filing highlights the potential for the emergence of multi-generational groups devoid of full citizenship protections.
Constitutional scholars and legal experts indicate that any change to birthright citizenship would necessitate a constitutional amendment, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by the states. They point out that the U.S. is among approximately 30 other nations, primarily in the Americas, that practice jus soli, or “right of the soil” citizenship. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle through multiple key decisions.
The nationwide impact of the order has initiated additional legal proceedings, including a forthcoming hearing before a federal judge in Maryland. Meanwhile, the Justice Department plans to submit arguments against a longer-term injunction next week. Legal experts predict that the case will eventually ascend to the Supreme Court, although they anticipate that the order will encounter significant obstacles even before the current conservative majority.
Recent analysis suggests that the order could impact millions of individuals born in the U.S. and their offspring. The U.S. has consistently interpreted the 14th Amendment as granting citizenship to all those born within its boundaries for over a century. This has established a legal precedent that experts believe would be challenging to overturn, even in a Supreme Court with a conservative lean.
This ruling marks the first significant legal hurdle to the immigration policies that are a cornerstone of Trump’s second-term agenda. The Justice Department has signaled that it intends to continue defending the order through the appeals process, while state attorneys gear up for protracted legal battles over the constitutional implications of the directive.