US judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order temporarily

A federal judge has stopped President Donald Trump’s executive order that aimed to limit birthright citizenship. This right, protected by the Constitution, gives automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

On Thursday, District Court Judge John Coughenour in Seattle, Washington, issued a temporary restraining order. He blocked the government from enforcing the order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

Background on Birthright Citizenship

Birthright citizenship means a person automatically becomes a citizen at birth. There are two types: one based on ancestry and the other on birthplace. Birthplace-based citizenship, known as jus soli (Latin for “right of the soil”), grants citizenship depending on where someone is born. The US is one of about 30 countries in the world with birthright citizenship.

In the United States, the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship. It states 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.” 

The 14th Amendment was created in 1868 after the Civil War to grant citizenship to Black people who had been enslaved. Also, in 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this principle that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the country. 

Details of Trump’s Executive Order

On his first day as president, he signed an order challenging the long-standing constitutional right that grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., a law established over 150 years ago. Trump instructed federal agencies to deny birthright citizenship to children born to parents without legal status, including those on work, study, or tourist visas. 

The order also applied to children whose parents were neither U.S. citizens nor permanent residents. This decision could affect access to passports, Social Security numbers, and citizenship certificates. If the order is allowed to go forward, it would deny citizenship to all children born after February 19, 2025, unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Legal Challenges and Court Ruling

Trump’s action was quickly challenged in court as unconstitutional. Immigrant rights groups, along with activist groups and expectant mothers, filed a lawsuit against Trump’s birthright citizenship order on Monday night. They asked a federal court in New Hampshire to declare the order illegal and block the government from enforcing it. The lawsuit stated, “The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically enshrined this principle in our Constitution’s text to ensure that no one—not even the President—could deny children born in America their rightful place as citizens.”

On Tuesday, the attorneys general from 22 Democratic-led states, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco also joined in. They filed similar lawsuits in federal courts in Seattle and Boston. On Thursday, District Court Judge John Coughenour in Seattle, Washington, issued a temporary restraining order. 

Judge Coughenour, who has been on the bench for over 40 years, said, “I can’t remember another case where the question presented was this clear. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order. Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?“

Responses and Reactions

On Thursday, Lane Polozola, assistant attorney general of Washington, argued that Trump’s idea was “absurd.” He pointed out that neither people who immigrate illegally nor their children are exempt from U.S. law.

Polozola asked, “Are they not subject to the decisions of the immigration courts? Must they not follow the law while they are here?“

However, Trump and others who oppose birthright citizenship argue that it encourages people to enter the U.S. illegally. They also claim it leads to “birth tourism,” where pregnant women travel to the U.S. to give birth so their children can gain citizenship before returning to their home countries.

Eric Ruark, the research director for NumbersUSA, which advocates for reducing immigration, said, “Simply crossing the border and having a child should not entitle anyone to citizenship.” The group supports a change requiring at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen or a permanent legal resident so their child can automatically receive citizenship.

Brett Shumate, a federal government lawyer, argued that the administration’s birthright citizenship order was constitutional. He stated that undocumented immigrants are still under the control of a foreign government and, therefore, do not owe allegiance to the United States. He also argued that their children, even if born in America, would not have loyalty to the U.S. either.

Also, after the ruling, a Justice Department spokesperson stated that the department would “vigorously defend” President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship in court. They also emphasized that they are doing this for “the American people, who are desperate to see our nation’s laws enforced.”

Conclusion

A US judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order, calling it unconstitutional and violating the 14th Amendment. Birthright citizenship ensures automatic citizenship for anyone born in the U.S., regardless of parents’ immigration status. Trump’s order faced widespread legal challenges, emphasizing the constitutional protection of citizenship for children born in America. The court ruling highlights the ongoing debate over immigration policies and the constitutional guarantees of equality.

Feature Image : BCC