A U.S. federal judge has temporarily blocked an executive order by former President Donald Trump, which sought to limit the right to automatic birthright citizenship in the United States. The ruling, which came on January 24, 2025, was a significant blow to Trump’s immigration policies and followed legal action from several Democratic-led states.
The order, which Trump signed on his first day back in office after his re-election, had aimed to prevent children born in the U.S. from automatically gaining citizenship if neither parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. This move would have applied to thousands of children born in the U.S. annually, excluding them from receiving U.S. citizenship, social security numbers, and government benefits, with the potential for deportation.
However, a Seattle-based U.S. District Judge, John Coughenour, issued a temporary restraining order, halting the implementation of the controversial policy. Judge Coughenour, appointed by former Republican President Ronald Reagan, stated that the executive order was “blatantly unconstitutional.” The order was blocked at the request of four Democratic-led states: Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon.
The ruling marked the first major legal challenge to Trump’s policies on immigration, which have been a central aspect of his second term in office. Judge Coughenour expressed disbelief at the arguments put forward by the U.S. Justice Department defending the executive order, calling the policy “unconstitutional” and “clear.”
While the ruling is a temporary measure, it prevents Trump’s policy from being enforced nationwide for the next 14 days. During this time, Judge Coughenour will decide whether to issue a longer-lasting injunction to stop the policy permanently. The ruling comes amid growing opposition from civil rights groups and Democratic state attorneys general, who argue that the policy violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, including children born to non-citizen parents. This constitutional right has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court for over a century. The ruling in this case is based on the belief that Trump’s order directly contradicts this long-standing interpretation of the law.
At the center of the legal challenge is the claim that Trump’s executive order would unlawfully deny citizenship to over 150,000 children born annually in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful residents. This would have major social and economic implications, as children denied citizenship would not have access to basic government services, including healthcare and education.
During the court hearing, Washington State Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola argued that under Trump’s policy, babies born in the U.S. today would not be considered American citizens. This argument was met with strong support from Judge Coughenour, who pointed out that the policy was in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
On the other hand, Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate defended the executive order, claiming it was within Trump’s authority to make changes to immigration laws and address what the administration calls a “broken” immigration system. Shumate further described any judicial intervention as “wildly inappropriate.” Despite his objections, the judge proceeded to sign the temporary restraining order.
The Justice Department, however, intends to appeal the ruling. They plan to file legal documents in the coming days to urge the judge not to issue a longer injunction. A spokesperson for the department emphasized the administration’s commitment to “vigorously defending” the executive order.
The situation is now set to escalate, with some legal experts predicting that the matter could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. This is particularly significant because of the court’s current 6-3 conservative majority, which includes three justices appointed by Trump himself. Despite this, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, expressed confidence that the ruling would stand, stating that “nothing that the president can do will change” the right to citizenship for those born in the U.S.
In addition to the legal battle in court, Trump’s executive order has prompted widespread protests and criticism from civil rights organizations. Over the past few days, several lawsuits have been filed against the order, most notably by civil rights groups and Democratic attorneys general from 22 states. These groups argue that Trump’s policy runs contrary to the long-established interpretation of the Constitution’s citizenship clause, which was settled by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling more than a century ago.
The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was put in place to protect the rights of newly freed slaves following the Civil War. The ruling in 1898 by the U.S. Supreme Court in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case confirmed that anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status, was entitled to American citizenship.
In addition to the legal challenges, a separate bill has been introduced by 36 Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives, aiming to restrict automatic birthright citizenship. The proposed legislation would limit citizenship to only those children born to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
While this new bill represents a different avenue for Trump’s allies to pursue the policy goals, it is expected to face strong opposition in Congress and from the courts. The U.S. political landscape remains divided on the issue, with Republicans pushing for stricter immigration controls and Democrats defending the rights of immigrants and their children.
If Trump’s executive order is allowed to stand, the impact could be far-reaching, affecting not only the children born to non-citizens but also shaping the broader debate on immigration reform in the U.S. The case is far from over, and both sides are preparing for a long legal battle. For now, Judge Coughenour’s decision marks a significant setback for Trump’s administration and his efforts to reshape immigration policies in the U.S.
