A US federal judge has temporarily blocked Donald Trump’s controversial executive order, which aimed to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. The ruling has reignited fierce debates over immigration policy and the interpretation of the US Constitution.
The decision, handed down in Seattle, comes just days after Trump signed the order during his first day back in office. The measure, described by critics as “unconstitutional,” would have denied citizenship to tens of thousands of newborns annually if enforced.
Citizenship : Judge Halts ‘Unconstitutional’ Measure
After urgent pleas from four states run by Democrats, federal judge John Coughenour—a former Republican president Ronald Reagan appointee—issued the interim restraining order. The judge referred to the executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional,” citing the citizenship section of the 14th Amendment, which confers citizenship on anyone born in the United States. Since its ratification in 1868, this clause has served as a pillar of American civil rights legislation.
The executive order, which was scheduled to take effect on 19 February, instructed federal agencies to refuse recognition of the citizenship of children whose parents are neither US citizens nor legal permanent residents. Critics argue the measure would strip over 150,000 newborns annually of fundamental rights, including social security numbers, government benefits, and work authorisations as they grow older.
“TThis is step one but to hear the judge from the bench say that in his 40 years as a judge, he has never seen something so blatantly unconstitutional, sets the tone for the seriousness of this effort.” said Lane Polozola, assistant attorney general of Washington state, one of the plaintiffs.
The Department of Justice, in its defence, argued that the 14th Amendment was never intended to extend automatic citizenship universally and cited a Supreme Court case from 1898 (United States v Wong Kim Ark) as only applying to children of legal residents. However, the Democratic states opposing the measure claim this understanding has been firmly established for over a century.
Lawsuits and Political Fallout
The Seattle case is one of five legal challenges already filed against the executive order by civil rights groups and attorneys general from 22 states. While Judge Coughenour’s decision temporarily blocks the measure, further legal battles are expected as the lawsuits progress.
The broader political implications are equally significant. Trump‘s supporters view the executive order as a vital step in addressing what they perceive as a broken immigration system. On the other hand, opponents see it as a direct attack on a bedrock constitutional principle and a broader effort to restrict immigration rights.
Legislative allies of Trump have also introduced proposals in Congress to codify similar restrictions on birthright citizenship. While the restraining order halts immediate implementation, the future of the executive order—and the broader debate over immigration reform—remains uncertain.
Got a reaction? Share your thoughts in the comments
Enjoyed this article? Subscribe to our free Newsletter for captivating articles, exclusive content, and the latest news.
