Femi Ashekun/
A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order redefining birthright citizenship, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
The ruling came after the first hearing in a multi-state lawsuit challenging the order, which had been brought by Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who has been on the bench for more than four decades, pressed Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate during the hearing. Coughenour questioned the constitutionality of the executive order, stating that he could not recall any case where an action so clearly violated the constitution.
Despite Shumate’s request for a full briefing on the merits of the case, Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order blocking the executive order’s implementation.
The case is part of a larger legal effort involving 22 states and several immigrant rights groups. Among the plaintiffs are U.S.-born attorneys general who personally feel the impact of the birthright citizenship issue, as well as pregnant women who fear their children may be denied citizenship.
Washington Assistant Attorney General, Lane Polozola, who represented the states, called the government’s argument “absurd,” pointing out that children born in the U.S. are still subject to U.S. law, even if their parents are undocumented.
He also argued that the executive order would lead to significant state costs in revising healthcare and benefits systems to reconsider citizenship status for affected individuals.
The Justice Department, on the other hand, maintains that the executive order correctly interprets the 14th Amendment and will continue to defend the president’s stance. The administration has stated that the order, which would take effect in February 2025, would only impact births after that date, so a temporary restraining order is not necessary.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees citizenship to anyone born or naturalised in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction. Trump’s executive order, however, asserts that children born to noncitizen parents should not automatically be granted citizenship, arguing that they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The 1898 Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark, which upheld birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, is often cited as precedent in such cases. However, some advocates of immigration restrictions argue that the case only applies to children born to legal immigrants, not those born to parents living in the country illegally.
The lawsuits challenging the executive order also include personal testimonies, such as that of Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general, who emphasised the personal nature of the case for his own family.
As the legal battles unfold, the outcome could have significant implications for the future of birthright citizenship in the U.S.
0