Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Order to End Birthright Citizenship/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, citing the 14th Amendment. The order, set to take effect on Feb. 19, has faced lawsuits from 22 states and immigrant rights groups, who argue it would strip citizenship from children born to noncitizen parents.
Birthright Citizenship Ruling: Quick Looks
- Temporary Injunction Issued: Judge John C. Coughenour halted Trump’s order pending further legal review.
- 14th Amendment at the Center: The ruling upholds birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the Constitution.
- Lawsuits Nationwide: Twenty-two states and immigrant groups have filed cases against the order.
- Wide Impact: The executive order could affect hundreds of thousands of children born annually to noncitizen parents.
- Historical Precedent: The 1898 Wong Kim Ark case solidified the principle of jus soli in U.S. law.
Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Order to End Birthright Citizenship
Deep Look: Federal Judge Blocks Birthright Citizenship Order
A federal court in Seattle has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order, which seeks to end the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to noncitizen parents.
Legal Basis for the Decision
Judge John C. Coughenour issued the ruling Thursday in response to a lawsuit filed by Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and Illinois. The states argue that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution explicitly guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment states:
“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.”
The lawsuits emphasize that birthright citizenship has been an established constitutional right for over a century, citing the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was a U.S. citizen by birth, despite restrictive immigration laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act.
What Trump’s Order Says
Signed on Inauguration Day, Trump’s executive order argues that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and thus are not guaranteed citizenship. The order directs federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born after Feb. 19 unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen.
Critics, including constitutional scholars, argue that this interpretation disregards clear constitutional language and established legal precedent.
Potential Impact of the Executive Order
- 255,000 children were born to mothers living in the U.S. illegally.
- 153,000 children were born to two parents without legal status.
The executive order would fundamentally alter the lives of these children, denying them full rights and protections as U.S. citizens.
One of the plaintiffs, identified as “Carmen,” is a pregnant woman who has lived in the U.S. for 15 years and is pursuing a visa for permanent residency. Her case highlights the deeply personal consequences of the order.
“Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” the lawsuit argues.
Nationwide Legal Challenges
The Seattle case is one of five lawsuits filed across the country by 22 states and numerous immigrant rights groups. These lawsuits include personal testimonies from attorneys general and affected individuals.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, the first Chinese American elected to the role, described the case as personal, stating:
“There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm on American families like my own.”
Supporters of the Order’s Legal Justification
Advocates of Trump’s order argue that the Wong Kim Ark case applies only to children born to legal immigrants, not those whose parents are in the U.S. illegally. They contend that the Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, leaving room for interpretation.
What’s Next?
The temporary block means the executive order cannot take effect on Feb. 19 as planned, giving courts more time to consider its constitutionality. Legal experts widely anticipate that the case will eventually reach the Supreme Court, where it could set a historic precedent on the future of birthright citizenship in the U.S.
Historical and Global Context
The U.S. is one of about 30 countries that apply birthright citizenship, or jus soli (“right of the soil”). Most of these nations are in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico. However, immigration restriction advocates argue that the U.S. should reconsider this policy, given modern immigration challenges.
Conclusion: A Divisive Fight Ahead
For now, the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship remains intact. However, Trump’s executive order has ignited a contentious legal battle that will likely shape immigration policy and constitutional interpretation for years to come.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.