Contact Us for a Free Consultation 304-755-1101

Blog

Federal Judge Blocks Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship as “Blatantly Unconstitutional”

Posted by Paul Saluja | Jan 23, 2025

In a decisive legal victory for proponents of birthright citizenship, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order on Thursday to block an executive order signed by former President Donald Trump that sought to limit automatic citizenship for children born in the United States. The ruling comes as a rebuke to the administration's attempt to reinterpret the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, a cornerstone of constitutional law.

Background of the Executive Order

Signed on Trump's first day in office, the executive order directed federal agencies to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the country if neither parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The implications of this policy were sweeping—potentially affecting over 150,000 newborns annually, according to estimates from Democratic-led states challenging the order. The policy also sought to bar these children from obtaining Social Security numbers, government benefits, or the legal ability to work as they aged.

The order was immediately met with backlash, sparking lawsuits nationwide. Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon led the charge, arguing that the policy violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. This clause, adopted in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War, explicitly grants citizenship to all individuals born in the United States, regardless of their parents' immigration status.

Judge Coughenour's Ruling

Judge Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, did not mince words during the hearing, calling the order “blatantly unconstitutional.” He expressed disbelief that a legal professional could argue otherwise, stating, “It just boggles my mind.” Before the Justice Department's attorney defending the order could finish their argument, the judge announced that he had already signed the restraining order requested by the states.

The restraining order halts enforcement of the policy nationwide for 14 days while the court considers a preliminary injunction. This pause is critical, as it prevents children born after February 19 from being denied the protections and rights afforded under U.S. law.

Constitutional Implications

The heart of the legal challenge lies in the 14th Amendment, which overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision and enshrined birthright citizenship into the Constitution. For over 127 years, the Supreme Court's interpretation of this clause has remained consistent: children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship.

The Trump administration argued that the order was a necessary part of addressing what it called a “broken immigration system” and a “crisis at the southern border.” However, Judge Coughenour's decision underscores the principle that executive actions cannot override constitutional protections.

Broader Legal and Political Fallout

The ruling in Seattle is just one of many legal battles facing the executive order. Civil rights groups and Democratic attorneys general from 22 states have filed similar lawsuits, framing the order as a direct assault on constitutional rights.

In addition to these legal challenges, Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives have introduced legislation mirroring Trump's executive order, aiming to limit birthright citizenship to children of citizens or lawful permanent residents. Such legislative efforts are unlikely to gain traction in the current political climate, given the deep constitutional and historical precedents protecting birthright citizenship.

Conclusion

This ruling serves as a powerful reminder of the enduring protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. While debates over immigration policy and executive authority will undoubtedly continue, the decision by Judge Coughenour reaffirms that fundamental rights—such as birthright citizenship—cannot be curtailed through unilateral executive action.

As this case and others move through the courts, Saluja Law will continue to monitor developments, providing insights into their implications for immigration policy, constitutional law, and the rights of individuals born in the United States.

About the Author

Paul Saluja

Paul Saluja is a distinguished legal professional with over two decades of experience serving clients across a spectrum of legal domains. Graduating from West Virginia State University in 1988 with a bachelor's degree in chemistry, he continued his academic journey at Ohio Northern University, gr...

Contact Us Today

Specializing in Immigration and Business Law on an international scale, Saluja Law Offices PLLC operates out of West Virginia and handles Family law cases within the local community.

We offer a Free Consultation and we'll gladly discuss your case with you at your convenience. Contact us today to schedule an appointment.

Menu