The controversial executive order on birthright citizenship faces immediate legal challenges as civil rights groups and Democratic-led states oppose its enforcement
January 24, 2025: Judge Blocks Trump’s Citizenship Order, Labels It “Blatantly Unconstitutional”
A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday temporarily blocked former President Donald Trump’s new executive order aimed at restricting automatic birthright citizenship, calling the order "blatantly unconstitutional." The order, signed on Trump’s first day back in office, has already drawn widespread criticism and is the subject of five lawsuits filed by civil rights groups and Democratic attorneys general.
Also Read: Trump Urges Peace Settlement in Russia-Ukraine Conflict, Calls for Oil Price Reduction
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, appointed by former Republican President Ronald Reagan, issued the temporary restraining order at the request of four Democratic-led states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. The states argued that the executive action violates the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
Also Read: Trump Urges NATO to Boost Defense Spending to 5% GDP at Davos
Executive Order Faces Backlash
Trump’s order directs U.S. agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the United States if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. This directive would affect over 150,000 newborns annually, stripping them of citizenship and access to vital government benefits such as Social Security and lawful employment opportunities.
“This is a blatant violation of the Constitution,” said Washington Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola during the court hearing. He argued that the citizenship clause, adopted in 1868 as part of the 14th Amendment, was unequivocally established to grant citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Trump Administration’s Defence
The U.S. Justice Department defended the executive order as an “integral part” of Trump’s immigration crackdown, claiming it would address what the administration views as systemic flaws in the nation’s immigration policies. The department argued that the 14th Amendment had not been universally interpreted to grant citizenship and cited a precedent from the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which they claim applies only to children of lawful permanent residents.
The Justice Department also challenged the legal standing of the states to file the lawsuit, asserting that only individuals could bring claims under the citizenship clause.
Historical Context and Legal Implications
The 14th Amendment was introduced to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which denied constitutional protections to enslaved Black people. Over the past 127 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the principle that all children born in the country, regardless of their parents’ status, are entitled to citizenship. Democratic-led states have cited this legal precedent in their case against Trump’s order.
The judge’s decision to block the executive order is a temporary measure, but it sets the stage for a protracted legal battle. Judge Coughenour could issue a final ruling in the coming weeks.
Broader Implications
In addition to the lawsuits, 36 Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation seeking to limit birthright citizenship to children born to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. While the order has emboldened Trump’s allies, it has also reignited debates about constitutional protections and immigration policies.
For now, the court’s decision has delayed the implementation of the order, providing a reprieve to those who would have been immediately affected. However, the case underscores the contentious nature of immigration reform and its deep impact on the U.S. legal and social landscape.
Suggested Tags:
Trump executive order, birthright citizenship, 14th Amendment, US Constitution, immigration policy, US judiciary, Seattle federal court, Trump administration, civil rights, immigration crackdown
Last Updated on January 24, 2025 by Misha Bhatia
