A federal judge in Seattle has signed a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour on Thursday heard a request by four Democratic-led states to issue a temporary restraining order against the executive order signed by Trump that purports to limit birthright citizenship — long guaranteed by the 14th Amendment — to people who have at least one parent who is a US citizen or permanent resident.
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” said Judge Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. “I can’t recall another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a patently unconstitutional order.”
“In your opinion, is this ordinance constitutional?” he asked DOJ attorney Brett Shumate.
“Yes, we think it is,” Shumate said, drawing the judge’s reprimand.
“I have a hard time understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” Coughenour said. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was made?”
Shumate pleaded with Coughenour to wait to block the order, saying it doesn’t take effect until Feb. 19.
President Donald Trump signs orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington on January 20, 2025.
Carlos Barria/Reuters
“Suffice it to say, there is no imminent harm that the states will suffer as a result of this order,” Shumate said. “We urge the court not to make any preliminary order today on the merits. What makes sense is to have a full briefing on the preliminary injunction.”
“Births cannot be paused while the court hears this case,” said Lane Polozola, a lawyer representing the state attorneys general, who said Trump’s executive order seeks to change a section of the Constitution that is “off limits” after being settled over a century. of legal precedent.
Judge Coughenour appeared convinced and concluded the hearing by saying that he signed the temporary restraining order and that he would consider whether to grant a long-term ban in the coming weeks.
Coughenour’s order temporarily enjoins Trump and any federal employee from enforcing or implementing the executive order.
“The plaintiff states have also shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of interim relief,” Coughenour wrote, referring to the costs of medical care, social services and administrative work faced by the four states suing Trump.
“The balance of equity against the plaintiff states and the public interest weighs heavily in favor of entering into interim relief,” the order said.
A Justice Department spokesman said the department would defend Trump’s order.
“The Department of Justice will vigorously defend President Trump’s EO, which properly interprets the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the statement said. “We look forward to presenting a full case to the Court and to the American people, who are desperate to see our nation’s laws enforced.”
Thursday’s ruling was the first legal test of Trump’s executive order, which reinterprets the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship that Trump has long promised on the campaign trail. The executive action is expected to trigger a lengthy legal challenge that could define the president’s sweeping immigration agenda.
Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and two cities have sued Trump over the executive order, and the president faces at least five separate lawsuits over the policy.
In an interview with ABC News after the hearing, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown said he plans to continue fighting the executive order if the Trump administration appeals to a higher court.
“I don’t think it ends here,” Brown said. “First of all, there are other cases that are being brought across the country, and so those cases will continue to move forward, and this president and this administration certainly have a propensity to keep those battles going, and so I expect that it will happen in the future.”
Coughenour scheduled Thursday’s in-person hearing in the case filed by the attorneys general of Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Illinois. In a federal complaint filed Tuesday, the four attorneys general argued that Trump’s policy would illegally strip at least 150,000 newborns each year of the citizenship that is entitled to them under federal law and the 14th Amendment.
“The plaintiff states will also suffer irreparable harm because thousands of children will be born within their borders but denied full participation and opportunity in American society,” the lawsuit states. “Absent a temporary restraining order, children born in the plaintiff states will soon be rendered undocumented, subject to removal or detention, and many stateless.”
The lawsuit claims that enforcement of Trump’s executive order would cause irreparable harm to children born to undocumented parents by preventing them from enjoying their right to “full participation and opportunity in American society.”
“They will lose their right to vote, serve on juries and run for certain offices,” the complaint states. “And they will be placed in lifelong positions of instability and uncertainty as part of a new underclass in the United States.”
Lawyers for the Justice Department, now under new management, opposed the request for a temporary restraining order in a court filing Wednesday.
Despite taking effect next month, Trump’s executive order attempts to reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship by arguing that a child born in the United States to an undocumented mother cannot receive citizenship unless his or her father is a citizen or holder of a green card.
While most countries grant a child citizenship based on their parents, the United States and more than two dozen countries, including Canada and Mexico, follow the principle of jus soli, or “right to the land.”
After the Civil War, the United States codified jus soli through the passage of the 14th Amendment, rejecting the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Dred Scott v. Sanford that African Americans were not eligible for citizenship.
“President Trump and the federal government are now seeking to impose a modern version of Dred Scott. But nothing in the Constitution gives the president, federal agencies, or any other authority to impose conditions on the granting of citizenship to persons born in the United States,” the states’ lawsuit argued .
The Supreme Court further established birthright citizenship in 1898 when it found the San Francisco-born son of Chinese immigrants to be a U.S. citizen despite the Chinese Exclusion Act, which restricted immigration from China and prohibited Chinese Americans from becoming naturalized citizens.
In seeking to end birthright citizenship, Trump’s executive order centers on the same phrase in the 14th Amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — that the Supreme Court considered in 1898. Trump’s executive order argues that the text of the 14th Amendment excludes children born to parents who are not are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, such as people who are in the United States illegally
While legal scholars have expressed skepticism about the legality of Trump’s executive order, the lawsuit could set the stage for a lengthy legal battle that will end up before the Supreme Court.
