What to know about the ruling blocking Trump’s order on birthright citizenship
President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to deny U.S. citizenship to children of parents living in the country illegally has faced its first legal challenge, and it did not go well for the administration. U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour quickly critiqued the arguments presented by a Justice Department lawyer, labeling the executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional” and temporarily blocking its implementation pending further legal proceedings.
What is birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is the established principle that anyone born in a country is granted citizenship of that country. In the United States, this principle is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which asserts that “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 amendment was ratified in 1868 to guarantee citizenship for former slaves after the Civil War.
Critics of unrestricted immigration suggest that this right incentivizes individuals to enter or remain in the U.S. illegally, believing that having children in the country will grant those children citizenship. Consequently, these citizen children could later advocate for their parents to receive legal residency.
In an effort to address illegal immigration, Trump issued the executive order shortly after assuming office for his second term. This measure received immediate backlash, leading to multiple legal challenges from states and immigrant rights organizations. A lawsuit initiated by Washington, Arizona, Oregon, and Illinois was the first to be heard in court.
What’s next for the legal challenges?
The ruling by Judge Coughenour was a temporary restraining order, halting the enforcement of Trump’s executive order for 14 days. In this time, both sides will prepare additional briefs regarding the legal merits of the case. A follow-up hearing is set for February 6 to determine whether to issue a preliminary injunction, which would block the order on a more permanent basis as the case moves forward.
Meanwhile, other lawsuits challenging the executive order are progressing as well. One such case, initiated by CASA—a nonprofit immigrant rights group—is scheduled for a hearing on February 5 in Greenbelt, Maryland. Additionally, lawsuits led by New Jersey on behalf of 18 states, the District of Columbia, and another from Massachusetts by the Brazilian Worker Center are in the pipeline but do not yet have scheduled hearings.
Aside from claiming the executive order is unconstitutional, the challenging states assert that the order would result in deportation for all affected children and create stateless individuals. This order would strip rights and hinder the ability of these children to engage fully in economic or civic life, they argue.
Why did the judge block Trump’s order?
Although Judge Coughenour did not elaborate extensively on his reasoning during the ruling, his characterization of the order as “blatantly unconstitutional” and his pointed questioning of the Department of Justice attorney strongly indicated alignment with the states’ claims. The states maintain that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship and that the president lacks authority to determine citizenship at birth.
Coughenour, who has served as a judge for more than four decades, remarked, “I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is.” The Department of Justice later announced its intent to vigorously defend the executive order, expressing anticipation in presenting a complete argument in favor of the president’s directive.
Who is the judge?
Judge John C. Coughenour, now 84 years old, has a long-standing judicial career that began after earning his law degree from the University of Iowa in 1966. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, he has established a reputation for being an independent and sometimes combative jurist. Even as he has taken semi-retired status, he continues to hear cases.
Washington’s newly elected Attorney General Nick Brown, a former U.S. attorney for Seattle, commented on the hearing, stating he was not surprised by Coughenour’s reaction to what he described as the “absurdity” of the executive order. Notably, Coughenour has presided over numerous significant cases throughout his career, including the high-profile case involving “millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam.
