Janice R. Andrews
In a pivotal legal setback for President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda, a federal judge on Thursday temporarily halted the administration’s attempt to end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil. This ruling marks the first major roadblock to the president’s executive order, which aimed to challenge decades of legal precedent regarding birthright citizenship. Immigration advocates and several state governments hailed the decision, emphasizing that it preserves constitutional protections long recognized under the 14th Amendment.
The contested executive order was issued during the early hours of Mr. Trump’s presidency, declaring that babies born in the United States to undocumented immigrants—along with those of certain temporary visa holders—would no longer be considered American citizens. This sweeping move drew instant legal challenges. Critics argued that the directive directly conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment, which asserts that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
During a hearing convened just three days after the order’s announcement, Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington sided with four states—Washington, Illinois, Oregon, and Arizona—that sued to stop the policy. The judge unequivocally deemed the directive “blatantly unconstitutional,” openly questioning the Trump administration’s legal reasoning. He went so far as to say he was baffled that government attorneys would argue its constitutionality without reservations.
The states challenging the order argued that revoking birthright citizenship could have severe immediate and long-term consequences. More than 150,000 children born annually to undocumented or temporary-status parents would risk losing recognition as citizens, potentially leaving them stateless. Beyond the human cost, the states contended that essential federal funding for various social programs—tied to population counts—would be jeopardized if large numbers of children were stripped of their legal status.
Attorneys general from the suing states cited legal interpretations dating back to at least 1995, when then-Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger warned Congress that any law attempting to restrict birthright citizenship would be “unconstitutional on its face.” Dellinger further asserted that even a constitutional amendment to remove birthright citizenship would contradict the nation’s longstanding legal and historical principles.
In response, federal government lawyers requested more time to fully brief the court, noting that the executive order was not set to take effect until the following month. They argued that no immediate harm could occur before the policy’s implementation date. However, the states pushed back, stressing that significant administrative burdens were already being placed on them to adjust legal and bureaucratic systems for determining eligibility for various public programs.
Judge Coughenour was unconvinced by the administration’s defense, stating that the constitutional question at issue was straightforward. The court’s injunction temporarily ensures that babies born on U.S. soil will continue to receive automatic citizenship, as they have throughout most of American history. The judge underscored the clarity of the 14th Amendment’s language, calling it a cornerstone of American civil rights and an essential guarantee that binds the nation together.
Meanwhile, another federal lawsuit—filed by 18 states and two cities—remains pending in Massachusetts. Legal experts anticipate that the ultimate fate of birthright citizenship under the Trump administration could be decided in the higher courts, setting the stage for a pivotal battle over the scope of executive power and the enduring guarantees enshrined in the 14th Amendment.
