Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

A federal judge in Seattle has issued an indefinite ruling blocking President Donald Trump’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents. This decision, made on Thursday, follows a similar ruling by a Maryland judge just one day earlier and comes two weeks after a temporary restraining order was placed on the administration’s plans.

U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour’s nationwide preliminary injunction halts the implementation of the executive order aimed at eliminating birthright citizenship, which was first signed by Trump on his first day in office. The Justice Department has since appealed Coughenour’s decision.

This injunction is rooted in a lawsuit initiated by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, alongside his counterparts from Oregon, Arizona, and Illinois. The earlier temporary restraining order marked the first nationwide block against the executive order. Coughenour’s latest ruling comes exactly 14 days after the initial injunction was issued.

In 2022, approximately 153,000 babies were born to undocumented parents across the United States, with around 4,000 of those births occurring in Washington state, as highlighted in the lawsuit. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, enshrined birthright citizenship in the Constitution, stating, “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 specifically targeted the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Lane Polozola from the Washington Attorney General’s office emphasized the need for an additional injunction, noting that the states involved face unique impacts that could not be addressed by the Maryland litigation. A hearing regarding a preliminary injunction is scheduled for Friday in a separate case brought by 18 states.

These injunctions are likely to remain in place until the matter is resolved, unless a higher court intervenes. Legal experts predict that the issue may eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where three justices were appointed by Trump. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will have jurisdiction before the case progresses to the Supreme Court.

During a previous court session, Judge Coughenour criticized the Trump administration’s legal arguments, deeming the executive order “blatantly unconstitutional.” He has since combined the states’ case with one filed by three pregnant women in Washington who lack legal immigration status. One of those women withdrew from the case due to fears of repercussions, as reported by Matt Adams, legal director for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.

In contrast, 18 Republican-led states, supported by Pete Serrano, a former candidate for Washington state attorney general, have urged the judge to uphold the president’s order. Coughenour, nominated by former President Ronald Reagan in 1981, acknowledged the strength of the arguments presented by Washington and the other states, commending AG Brown for his efforts.

Trump’s executive action aimed to terminate birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents, with the order initially set to take effect on February 19. The legal debates on Thursday largely revolved around an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case, which affirmed the principle of birthright citizenship when the court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, was a U.S. citizen.

However, attorneys for the Trump administration contended that the justices in that ruling specified that citizenship only applies to those with a permanent domicile in the U.S. They argued that individuals residing unlawfully or temporarily do not meet this criterion. The states’ legal representatives highlighted a different excerpt from the Wong Kim Ark ruling, stating, “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.”

Source: Seattle Medium