{"id":101158,"date":"2025-01-24T19:38:16","date_gmt":"2025-01-25T00:38:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/?p=101158"},"modified":"2025-01-24T19:38:21","modified_gmt":"2025-01-25T00:38:21","slug":"citizenship-upheld-court-stops-trumps-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/citizenship-upheld-court-stops-trumps-order\/","title":{"rendered":"Citizenship Rights Upheld: Court Stops Trump’s Executive Order"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
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<\/strong>. The ruling has reignited fierce debates over immigration policy and the interpretation of the US Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong>,” would have denied citizenship to tens of thousands of newborns annually if enforced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After urgent pleas from four states run by Democrats, federal judge John Coughenour<\/strong>\u2014a former Republican president Ronald Reagan appointee\u2014issued the interim restraining order. The judge referred to the executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional<\/strong>,” citing the citizenship section of the 14th Amendment<\/strong><\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The executive order, which was scheduled to take effect on 19 February<\/strong>, instructed federal agencies to refuse recognition of the citizenship of children whose parents are neither US<\/a> citizens nor legal permanent residents. Critics argue the measure would strip over 150,000<\/strong> newborns annually of fundamental rights, including social security numbers, government benefits, and work authorisations as they grow older.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTThis 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<\/strong>.\u201d said Lane Polozola, assistant attorney general of Washington state, one of the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong>. However, the Democratic states opposing the measure claim this understanding has been firmly established for over a century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Seattle case is one of five legal challenges<\/strong> already filed against the executive order by civil rights groups and attorneys general from 22 states<\/strong>. While Judge Coughenour’s decision temporarily blocks the measure, further legal battles are expected as the lawsuits progress.<\/p>\n\n\n\nCitizenship : Judge Halts \u2018Unconstitutional\u2019 Measure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Lawsuits and Political Fallout<\/h2>\n\n\n\n