A Seattle-based federal judge delivered a decisive setback to President Donald Trump’s immigration strategy by halting an executive order aimed at eliminating automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders born on U.S. soil.
On January 23, 2025, Judge John C. Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, issued a nationwide temporary restraining order that stalled the enforcement of the executive order for two weeks. Coughenour asserted his certainty about the order’s unconstitutionality, saying the case’s clarity was unprecedented and that he found it hard to comprehend how any lawyer could argue it was constitutional.
Four states – Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon – initiated the legal action, arguing that the order violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Their lawsuit holds that the amendment clearly guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the United States. The judge rejected the Trump administration lawyers’ interpretation of the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as an exclusion of children of undocumented immigrants. State attorneys argued that the order could cause “immediate and irreparable harm” by potentially creating a group of stateless residents.
The executive order, signed by Trump on his first day back in office, targeted the constitutional right of birthright citizenship irrespective of the parents’ immigration status. It commanded U.S. agencies to refuse citizenship recognition for children born to non-citizens or those without permanent legal residence, aiming for a February 19 implementation.
Judge Coughenour stressed the immediate effects during the proceedings, noting “Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case” and warning of “long-term substantial negative impacts” on children refused citizenship.
The Justice Department’s plea for more time to prepare a full briefing faced opposition from state attorneys, who contended that the postponement would necessitate immediate changes to federal program eligibility requirements. The states presented proof that the order would necessitate extensive changes to current citizenship verification systems and social service programs, creating considerable administrative challenges and possible service interruptions.
A more extensive legal challenge was filed in Massachusetts, bringing together 18 states, the District of Columbia, and the City of San Francisco. The coalition, led by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, asserts that the order violates the 14th Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Their legal submission outlines how the directive would impact hundreds of thousands of American children by denying them citizenship rights and access to critical federal programs. The coalition has requested immediate relief through a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has launched an additional legal challenge, representing expectant parents unsure about their children’s citizenship status. Their lawsuit includes testimony from a couple who arrived in 2023 seeking asylum, raising concerns about the creation of a permanent group of residents denied basic rights. The ACLU’s submission underscores the potential emergence of multi-generational groups without full citizenship protections.
Constitutional scholars and legal practitioners argue that changing birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, which would need a two-thirds majority in both congressional chambers as well as state ratification. They highlight that the U.S. is one of about 30 nations, mostly in the Americas, practicing jus soli or “right of the soil” citizenship, a principle upheld by the Supreme Court through numerous landmark rulings.
The nationwide reach of the order has spurred additional legal proceedings, including a hearing scheduled before a federal judge in Maryland. Meanwhile, the Justice Department plans to submit arguments against a longer-term injunction next week. Legal experts predict the case will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court, although they expect the order to face substantial hurdles even before the currently conservative-majority court.
Recent analysis suggests the order could impact millions of individuals born in the U.S. and their offspring. The U.S. has consistently interpreted the 14th Amendment as guaranteeing citizenship to those born within its borders for over a century, establishing a legal precedent that experts believe would be challenging to overturn, even in a Supreme Court leaning towards conservatism.
This ruling represents the first major legal blow to the immigration policies that are a key part of Trump’s second-term agenda. The Justice Department has signaled it will continue to defend the order throughout the appeals process as state attorneys gear up for prolonged legal battles over the constitutional implications of the directive.
