A federal judge temporarily blocked former President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order seeking to deny U.S. citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants, calling the measure “blatantly unconstitutional.” The ruling came during the first hearing in a multi-state legal challenge to the order.
The executive order, issued shortly after Trump’s second-term inauguration, aimed to deny citizenship to children born after February 19 whose parents are in the country illegally. It also prohibited federal agencies from issuing or accepting documents recognising citizenship for these children.
Citing the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary 14-day restraining order, halting the administration’s plans. “This is as clear-cut a constitutional violation as I’ve seen in over four decades on the bench,” said Coughenour, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan.
The case, filed by 22 states and immigrant rights groups, was spearheaded by Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and Illinois. The states argued that Trump’s order was an affront to constitutional protections and would cause immediate and irreparable harm to families and state systems.
Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola, representing the states, lambasted the order as “absurd,” highlighting that undocumented immigrants are still subject to U.S. laws and jurisdiction. Polozola argued that the executive order would force states to spend millions restructuring healthcare and benefits systems to accommodate its demands, impacting hundreds of thousands of individuals.
The Department of Justice, defending Trump’s order, claimed it “correctly interprets the 14th Amendment” and vowed to vigorously defend the policy. DOJ attorney Brett Shumate asserted that the arguments supporting the order were unprecedented but valid, despite the judge’s skepticism.
Trump’s executive order also reignited debate over the legal interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Historically, the clause was ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for former slaves and their descendants. However, Trump’s order contended that children of undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a claim opponents deemed baseless.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown criticized the order as an attack on fundamental constitutional principles, likening it to the dark legacy of the Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to African Americans. “The law is clear—if you are born on American soil, you are an American citizen. This principle has stood for generations, and no executive order can erase it,” Brown said.
Legal experts also pointed to the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed the citizenship of a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants under the 14th Amendment, despite restrictive immigration laws of the time.
Trump’s latest move sparked outrage among immigrant rights advocates and personal reflections from attorneys general like Connecticut’s William Tong, who emphasized the deeply personal impact of birthright citizenship on immigrant families. “There is no legitimate legal debate here. Trump is wrong, and his order threatens American families like my own,” Tong said.
The next hearing on the case is scheduled for February 6, where the court will decide whether to extend the restraining order as the case proceeds. Meanwhile, the political and legal battle over birthright citizenship continues to divide the nation.
