Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Temporarily Blocked

A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked Donald Trump’s first major executive order since his return to office, declaring it “blatantly unconstitutional.” The order sought to limit birthright citizenship in the United States, sparking widespread legal and political debate.

What is Birthright Citizenship in the US?

Birthright citizenship guarantees that almost everyone born on US soil automatically receives citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This principle is based on jus soli—the “right of the soil”—which has roots in English common law.

Historical Background

• The 14th Amendment: Ratified in 1868, this amendment was designed to grant citizenship to freed slaves. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
• Exceptions: Children of foreign diplomats or enemy occupiers are excluded from this rule. Currently, the US is one of around 30 countries worldwide, primarily in the Americas, that uphold this principle.

Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship

Upon returning to office, Donald Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship, labeling it an “absolutely ridiculous” practice. Trump argued that the US is the “only country” with such a law (an incorrect claim).

Key Provisions of the Order

• The order would deny citizenship to children born in the US after February 19, 2025, if neither parent is a US citizen or permanent resident.
• Affected children would not have access to citizenship, social security numbers, government benefits, or legal work opportunities.

Trump defended this move by stating that children of non-citizens are not under US jurisdiction and, therefore, do not qualify for citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

If enforced, this policy could strip citizenship from over 150,000 newborns annually, leading to significant legal and social challenges.

Legal Challenges and Opposition

The order has faced robust opposition, with multiple lawsuits arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
Four states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—filed the first legal challenge, calling the order unconstitutional.

Key Arguments Against the Order

• The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the US.
• The order disregards established legal precedents upheld by the Supreme Court.
• Critics warn that the policy would create a stateless population in the US, denying fundamental rights to children born in the country.

Judge John Coughenour’s Ruling

Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting Trump’s executive order.
Coughenour referred to the order as “blatantly unconstitutional” and expressed skepticism about the administration's defense of the policy. He remarked that the issue was clear-cut, stating, “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one.”

The Justice Department’s Response

Brett Shumate, representing the DOJ, defended the executive order, arguing that its legal basis hadn’t been previously tested and warranted judicial review. He also suggested that a TRO wasn’t needed as the policy wouldn’t take effect until February 2025. Despite this, Judge Coughenour proceeded with the restraining order.

The DOJ stated they would “vigorously defend” the order, asserting that it correctly interprets the 14th Amendment.

Broader Implications

Trump’s executive order has reignited discussions on immigration, citizenship rights, and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. If upheld, the policy could result in:

• A stateless population within the US.
• Legal difficulties for families and children.
• A major shift in how US citizenship is determined, with far-reaching consequences.

The case is likely to progress through the courts, with a potential Supreme Court ruling that could set a significant precedent for future immigration and citizenship policies.