A significant setback to President Donald Trump’s immigration plan occurred with a federal judge in Seattle, Washington blocking an executive order that aimed to terminate automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders.
Judge John C. Coughenour, appointed by Ronald Reagan, placed a nationwide 14-day temporary restraining order on the enforcement of the executive order on January 23, 2025. During the hearing, the judge conveyed remarkable confidence about the order’s unconstitutionality, declaring he “could not remember a case where the question was as clear” and expressed his disbelief about any lawyer asserting it was constitutional.
Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon brought forward the lawsuit against the order. They claimed the order contravened the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which they argued grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. When the Trump administration’s lawyers attempted to argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” allows for the exclusion of children of undocumented immigrants, the judge rejected their interpretation. The states’ attorneys presented evidence that the order could cause “immediate and irreparable harm” by potentially creating a group of stateless residents.
The executive order, signed by Trump on his first day back in office, intended to end the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship regardless of the immigration status of the parents. It instructed U.S. agencies to deny citizenship to children born to non-citizens or those without permanent legal status, with a planned implementation date of February 19.
During the hearing, Judge Coughenour highlighted the immediate implications of the order, stating that “Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case” and cautioned about “long-term substantial negative impacts” on children who would be denied citizenship.
The Justice Department’s request for more time to prepare a comprehensive briefing was met with opposition from the state’s attorneys. They argued that this delay would necessitate immediate and significant changes to federal program eligibility requirements. They provided evidence that the order would require widespread alterations to current citizenship verification systems and social service programs, leading to substantial administrative burdens and possible service disruptions.
A more comprehensive legal challenge has been filed in Massachusetts, uniting 18 states, the District of Columbia, and the City of San Francisco. Led by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, the coalition argues that the order contravenes the 14th Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Their legal filing details the potential impact on hundreds of thousands of American children, who could be stripped of citizenship rights and access to key federal programs. The coalition seeks immediate relief through a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also launched a legal challenge, representing expectant parents who are unsure about the citizenship status of their unborn children. Their lawsuit includes testimony from a couple who sought asylum in 2023, highlighting worries about creating a permanent group of residents denied fundamental rights. The ACLU’s filing underscores the potential for creating multi-generational groups lacking full citizenship protections.
Constitutional scholars and legal experts have noted that any change to birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, which would need a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by the states. They pointed out that the U.S., along with approximately 30 other nations, predominantly in the Americas, follows jus soli or “right of the soil” citizenship. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained this principle in multiple landmark rulings.
The order’s nationwide implications have led to additional legal proceedings, including a hearing scheduled before a federal judge in Maryland. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has revealed plans to submit arguments against a longer-term injunction. Legal experts predict the case will eventually reach the Supreme Court, though many believe the order would encounter significant hurdles, even before the current conservative majority.
Recent analysis suggests the order could impact millions of individuals born in the U.S. and their offspring. For over a hundred years, the U.S. has consistently interpreted the 14th Amendment as guaranteeing citizenship to those born within its borders, establishing a legal precedent that experts believe would be hard to overturn, even in a conservative-leaning Supreme Court.
This ruling marks the first major legal obstacle to the immigration policies that form a key part of Trump’s second-term agenda. The Justice Department has indicated it will continue to defend the order throughout the appeals process while state attorneys gear up for protracted legal battles over the directive’s constitutional validity.
