Judge Issues Ruling Against Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Plan

Federal judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order, calling it unconstitutional; lawsuits challenge immigration crackdown. [Image via Reuters]

A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday blocked US President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing an executive order curtailing the right to automatic birthright citizenship in the United States, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional”.

US District Judge John Coughenour at the urging of four Democratic-led states issued a temporary restraining order preventing the administration from enforcing the order, which the Republican president signed on Monday during his first day in office.

“This is [a] blatantly unconstitutional order,” the judge told a lawyer with the US Justice Department defending Trump’s order.

The order has already become the subject of five lawsuits by civil rights groups and Democratic attorneys general from 22 states, who call it a flagrant violation of the US Constitution.

“Under this order, babies being born today don’t count as US citizens,” Washington Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola told Senior US District Judge John Coughenour at the start of a hearing in Seattle.

Polozola — on behalf of Democratic state attorneys general from Washington state, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon — urged the judge to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the administration from carrying out this key element of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The challengers argue that Trump’s action violates the right enshrined in the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.

Also See: Trump’s Return: A New Era or More of the Same?

Trump in his executive order directed US agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither their mother nor father is a US citizen or legal permanent resident.

In a brief filed late on Wednesday, the US Justice Department called the order an “integral part” of the president’s efforts “to address this nation’s broken immigration system and the ongoing crisis at the southern border”.

The lawsuit filed in Seattle has been progressing more quickly than the four other cases brought over the executive order. It has been assigned to Coughenour, an appointee of Republican former president Ronald Reagan.

The judge potentially could rule from the bench after hearing arguments, or he could wait to write a decision ahead of Trump’s order taking effect.

Under the order, any children born after February 19 whose mothers or fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents would be subject to deportation and would be prevented from obtaining Social Security numbers, various government benefits and the ability as they get older to work lawfully.

More than 150,000 newborn children would be denied citizenship annually if Trump’s order is allowed to stand, according to the Democratic-led states.

Democratic state attorneys general have said that the understanding of the Constitution’s citizenship clause was cemented 127 years ago when the US Supreme Court held that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 following the Civil War and overturned the Supreme Court’s notorious 1857 Dred Scott decision that had declared that the Constitution’s protections did not apply to enslaved Black people.

But the Justice Department in its brief argued that the 14th Amendment had never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born in the country and that the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v Wong Kim Ark concerned only children of permanent residents.

The Justice Department said the case by the four states also “flunks multiple threshold hurdles”. The department said that only individuals, not states, can pursue claims under the citizenship clause and that the states lack the necessary legal standing to sue over Trump’s order.

Thirty-six of Trump’s Republican allies in the US House of Representatives on Tuesday separately introduced legislation to restrict automatic citizenship to only children born to citizens or lawful permanent residents.

This news is sourced from The Express Tribune and is intended for informational purposes only.

News Desk

Your trusted source for insightful journalism. Stay informed with our compelling coverage of global affairs, business, technology, and more.

Recent

A fact-based rebuttal of claims about Pakistani troop deployment in Gaza, exposing disinformation and reaffirming Pakistan’s UN-mandated peacekeeping doctrine.

Debunking the Gaza Deployment Narrative

False claims of a Pakistani troop deployment to Gaza, amplified by disinformation networks, were firmly rejected by the Foreign Office, reaffirming that Pakistan’s military operates only under UN mandates and constitutional limits.

Read More »
The death of Sharif Osman Hadi marks the collapse of the 1971 Consensus, reshaping Bangladesh’s identity and triggering a strategic crisis for India.

The End of the 1971 Consensus

Sharif Osman Hadi’s death has become the symbolic burial of the 1971 Consensus that long structured India–Bangladesh relations. For a generation with no lived memory of the Liberation War, Hadi embodies a Second Independence, reframing 1971 as the start of Indian dominance rather than true sovereignty. His killing has accelerated Bangladesh’s rupture with India and exposed a deep strategic crisis across South Asia.

Read More »
Afghanistan’s Taliban uses pharmaceutical policy to assert autonomy, decouple from Pakistan, and expand strategic ties with India.

Afghan Taliban’s Biopolitics

The Taliban’s health diplomacy is reshaping Afghanistan’s geopolitical landscape. By phasing out Pakistani pharmaceuticals and inviting Indian partnerships, Kabul securitizes its healthcare infrastructure as a tool of strategic realignment. The shift highlights the intersection of sovereignty, economic statecraft, and regional influence, with Afghan patients bearing the immediate consequences.

Read More »
Islamophobia after violent attacks fuels polarization, legitimizes collective blame, and undermines security while strengthening extremist narratives.

Who Benefits from Islamophobia?

In the wake of global violence, political actors often replace evidence-based analysis with collective blame. Islamophobia, when elevated from fringe rhetoric to state discourse, fractures society and weakens security.

Read More »