President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at denying U.S. citizenship to children born to parents living illegally in the country has encountered its first significant legal obstacle. It faced a critical test in a Seattle courtroom on Thursday and did not fare well.
During the hearing, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour questioned the Justice Department’s arguments and labeled the executive order “blatantly unconstitutional.” The judge issued a temporary restraining order, preventing the administration from enforcing the order nationwide while legal challenges proceed.
Understanding Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship grants citizenship to individuals born in a country, a principle enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly 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.” It was established to ensure citizenship for former slaves following the Civil War.
Critics argue that this provision incentivizes illegal immigration, as it allows children born in the U.S. to gain citizenship and potentially help their parents secure legal status in the future. Seeking to address this perceived issue, Trump signed the executive order shortly after being sworn in for his second term.
The order sparked immediate legal challenges nationwide. Five lawsuits, brought by 22 states and various immigrant rights groups, have been filed. The first hearing involved a case led by Washington, Arizona, Oregon, and Illinois.
What’s Next for Legal Challenges?
The judge’s temporary restraining order halts enforcement of the executive order for 14 days. During this period, both sides will file further arguments on the legality of the order. Judge Coughenour scheduled a follow-up hearing on February 6 to decide whether a preliminary injunction should be issued. Such an injunction would block the order indefinitely while the case progresses.
Meanwhile, other lawsuits against the order are moving forward. On February 5, CASA, a nonprofit immigrants’ rights organization, will have a hearing in Greenbelt, Maryland. Other cases, including one led by New Jersey representing 18 states, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco, as well as another brought by the Brazilian Worker Center in Massachusetts, have yet to schedule hearings.
Opponents of the order argue it would lead to severe consequences for affected children. They claim it could render many stateless, strip them of their rights, and prevent them from participating in civic or economic life.
Judge’s Reasoning
While Judge Coughenour did not provide an extensive explanation during the hearing, his statements made his stance clear. Calling the order “blatantly unconstitutional,” he grilled Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate while refraining from questioning Washington’s assistant attorney general, Lane Polozola.
The opposing states argue that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship is well-established and that the president lacks the authority to unilaterally decide citizenship qualifications.
Judge Coughenour emphasized the clarity of the issue, stating: “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is.”
The Justice Department responded with a statement asserting its intent to defend the executive order. “We look forward to presenting a full merits argument to the Court and to the American people, who are desperate to see our Nation’s laws enforced,” the department declared.
Judge Coughenour’s Background
At 84, Judge John C. Coughenour has served as a federal judge for over four decades. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, he graduated from the University of Iowa’s law program in 1966. Although semi-retired, he continues to hear cases and is known for his independence and assertive judicial style.
Newly elected Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, who previously served as a U.S. attorney in Seattle, expressed little surprise at the judge’s reaction. “I’ve been in front of Judge Coughenour before to see his frustration personally,” Brown said. “But I think the words that he expressed, and the seriousness that he expressed, really just drove home what we have been saying. … This is fairly obvious.”
Coughenour has presided over thousands of cases, including criminal and environmental matters. One of his most notable cases involved Ahmed Ressam, the so-called “millennium bomber,” who was arrested in December 1999 while attempting to enter the U.S. with explosives intended for a New Year’s Eve attack on Los Angeles International Airport.
Coughenour clashed with prosecutors over Ressam’s sentencing, disagreeing on how much leniency should be granted for Ressam’s cooperation after his conviction. After sentencing Ressam to 22 years twice—only to have the rulings overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—Coughenour ultimately imposed a 37-year sentence in 2012. Reflecting on the case, he remarked that it was the only instance where an appellate court had deemed him excessively lenient.
The Broader Implications
The temporary restraining order represents the first major legal setback for Trump’s executive order. The case is expected to set the stage for prolonged legal battles over the scope of presidential authority and the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship.
As additional hearings and rulings unfold, the outcome could have far-reaching consequences for immigration policy and the lives of millions of children born in the United States to parents without legal status. For now, the order remains blocked, and its fate will depend on arguments presented in the weeks and months ahead.