President Donald Trump’s contentious executive order to end birthright citizenship is set for its first legal test on Thursday morning in a Seattle courtroom. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, will preside over a 10 a.m. hearing to address a request from four states seeking a temporary restraining order against the directive.
Attorneys general from Arizona, Oregon, Washington, and Illinois initiated legal action against the executive order on Tuesday. They argue the order could disenfranchise over 150,000 newborns annually, comparing its implications to the Supreme Court’s notorious Dred Scott decision. The 14th Amendment, which overturned Dred Scott, established what the plaintiffs described as a “bright-line and nearly universal rule” of citizenship by birth.
“President Trump and the federal government now seek to impose a modern version of Dred Scott. But nothing in the Constitution grants the President, federal agencies, or anyone else authority to impose conditions on the grant of citizenship to individuals born in the United States,” the states’ emergency motion stated.
Trump’s executive order, signed just hours after his inauguration, directs federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to U.S.-born children of undocumented mothers or mothers in the country on temporary visas, provided the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a permanent resident.
Critics across the nation, including attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia, have labeled the order an unconstitutional move. They argue that it seeks to dismantle a long-established constitutional principle by executive fiat. States challenging the order include New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, and others, alongside the city of San Francisco.
“The President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute,” their lawsuit declared.
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul expressed his dismay at Trump’s actions, stating, “That one of Donald Trump’s first actions as president should be so diametrically opposed to our values as Americans is incredibly disappointing, though not surprising. The children born in the U.S. to immigrants are entitled to the rights and privileges that go along with U.S. citizenship.”
Raoul, the proud son of Haitian immigrants, added, “Denying birthright citizenship, which dates back centuries and has been upheld twice by the U.S. Supreme Court, is not the solution. As Attorney General, I will continue to stand with my fellow attorneys general to defend the constitutional rights of all children born in this country.”
Legal challenges warn of significant consequences. An estimated 150,000 children born each year to noncitizen parents could face deportation or become stateless, losing access to essential services like health care, foster care, and disability support. Moreover, states stand to lose federal funding for programs assisting children regardless of their immigration status.
“President Trump’s attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship is a flagrant violation of our Constitution,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin emphasized. “For more than 150 years, our country has followed the same basic rule: babies who are born in this country are American citizens. This isn’t just an attack on the law. It’s an attack on the very fabric of this nation.”
Platkin added, “Presidents in this country have broad power. But they are not kings.”
Experts have also voiced their concerns. Martin Redish, a professor of law and public policy at Northwestern University, pointed out that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all individuals born or naturalized in the U.S. “A president can’t just issue executive orders in the air,” Redish explained. He warned that such actions could undermine the Constitution itself, which requires a rigorous amendment process involving two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures.
“If you’re going to ignore section one of the 14th Amendment, all bets are off,” Redish said. “Presumably, he could take our citizenship away, yours, mine, the person next door.”
On Tuesday, nonprofit organizations in Massachusetts and New Hampshire also filed federal lawsuits against the executive order. These legal efforts aim to invalidate the order and halt any actions to implement it.
New York Attorney General Letitia James emphasized the historical significance of birthright citizenship. “The great promise of our nation is that everyone born here is a citizen of the United States, able to achieve the American dream,” she said. “This fundamental right to birthright citizenship, rooted in the 14th Amendment and born from the ashes of slavery, is a cornerstone of our nation’s commitment to justice.”
The executive order, set to take effect on February 19, has sparked anxiety among immigrant communities. In Chicago, where preparations for mass deportations are already underway, concerns have intensified.
Jose Miguel Muñoz, co-chair of the Illinois Latino Agenda, shared his perspective as the child of an immigrant family. “Everything that I’ve accomplished in my life, and all the work that I’ve done has been because of the fact that I was given the ability to be a citizen in the U.S.,” Muñoz said.
Reflecting on his mother’s sacrifices, Muñoz added, “Her top concern was, what does that mean for you, the rest of your brothers and sisters.” He expressed fears about the potential reach of the executive order, worrying it might extend beyond newborns.
“I contributed to my community. I contributed to our country. I helped others contribute in the world,” Muñoz said.
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker also condemned the administration’s actions. “People, vulnerable people across our country, are under attack as a result of this new administration,” he said.
Despite the challenges, Muñoz encouraged perseverance. “There will be a path, and if it’s not now, at some point, don’t lose hope,” he said.
This controversy over birthright citizenship underscores broader debates about immigration reform and the limits of presidential authority. While the legal battles begin, the executive order remains a focal point of intense national discussion, with implications for families, constitutional principles, and the fabric of American society.