• A federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
• The order targets children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents, sparking a legal battle over the 14th Amendment.
• Critics argue the policy violates constitutional rights, while supporters claim it’s necessary to curb illegal immigration.
• The Justice Department plans to appeal, as the issue remains a contentious part of the immigration reform debate.

A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, issued a two-week restraining order on Thursday, siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant advocacy groups who argue the policy violates the 14th Amendment.

The order, which would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents, has sparked a fierce legal and political battle over immigration, constitutional interpretation, and the rule of law.

The ruling marks the first legal setback for Trump’s controversial policy, which seeks to redefine the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil. Critics argue the move is an overreach of executive power and a direct attack on constitutional rights, while supporters claim it is a necessary step to curb illegal immigration and its associated problems, including crime and strain on public resources.

A constitutional clash

Judge Coughenour, who has served on the bench for over four decades, did not mince words during the hearing. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” he said, adding that he could not recall a case where the Constitution was so “flagrantly violated.” He questioned the administration’s legal reasoning, asking, “Where were the lawyers?” when the executive order was drafted.

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, 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.” Trump’s order argues that children born to noncitizen parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., a claim critics say contradicts over a century of legal precedent, including the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

The birthright citizenship order is part of Trump’s broader “America First” agenda to crack down on illegal immigration. The administration has designated Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, deployed additional troops to the southern border, and vowed to protect Americans from what Trump calls an “invasion” of migrants. During a recent interview, Trump claimed that thousands of terrorists have entered the country, blaming lax border policies under President Biden for the surge in illegal crossings.

Critics of the birthright citizenship order argue it is not only unconstitutional but also impractical. Lane Polozola, an attorney for the state of Washington, told the court that “births cannot be paused” while the legal battle unfolds. He warned that denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. would have “long-term substantial negative impacts” and create significant administrative challenges for state and federal governments.

A contentious future

The Justice Department has vowed to “vigorously defend” the order, insisting it “correctly” interprets the Constitution. Attorney Brett Shumate urged the court to delay its ruling until further briefings could be completed, arguing that the states had not demonstrated “imminent harm.” However, Judge Coughenour rejected this request, siding with the plaintiffs who argued that the policy would immediately burden state programs and harm families.

As the legal battle continues, the issue of birthright citizenship remains deeply contentious. Proponents of stricter immigration policies argue that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment encourages “anchor babies” and undermines the value of American citizenship. Opponents, however, warn that redefining birthright citizenship could erode constitutional protections and create a bureaucratic nightmare.

The temporary restraining order is a blow to Trump’s immigration agenda, but the fight is far from over. With multiple lawsuits pending and the Justice Department preparing to appeal, the future of birthright citizenship—and the broader debate over immigration reform—remains uncertain.

 

Sources for this article include:

RT.com

YourNews.com

CNN.com