Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship, Calls It “Blatantly Unconstitutional”

A federal district court judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, calling the measure “blatantly unconstitutional.” Senior U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour issued the decision on Thursday, halting the policy for 14 days while further arguments are made over a preliminary injunction to stop the order permanently.

The executive order, signed by Trump, seeks to limit automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States whose parents are U.S. citizens or green card holders. It marks a direct challenge to the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, with exceptions only for children of foreign diplomats.

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” said Judge Coughenour, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”

The case was brought forward by four states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—alongside Democratic attorneys general and immigrant rights groups. Plaintiffs argue that the executive order defies the 14th Amendment’s explicit language and would lead to significant harm for children born in the U.S., as well as financial burdens for the states tasked with implementing the order.

The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, begins with the sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Legal experts and advocates have argued this guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

Plaintiffs warned the executive order would create a “Presidentially-created underclass” in the United States. They argued the policy would strip children born in the plaintiff states of basic rights, rendering them stateless and subject to deportation. Without birthright citizenship, children would lose access to Social Security numbers, lawful work opportunities, and the ability to vote or serve in public office. The states also said they would face substantial financial losses due to disruptions in federally funded programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

In contrast, Justice Department attorneys defended the executive order as a necessary step to address what they called the nation’s “broken immigration system.” The department argued that the states lack standing to sue, claiming economic harms tied to citizenship status are not legally sufficient to challenge federal policy. They also contended that courts have misinterpreted the 14th Amendment for more than a century, suggesting that children of “non-resident aliens” are not entitled to birthright citizenship because they are “subject to foreign powers.”

The decision is the first in what promises to be a lengthy legal battle over the executive order. Legal analysts widely expect the case to make its way to the Supreme Court, where the interpretation of the 14th Amendment will face intense scrutiny.

The order has already drawn widespread criticism from legal scholars, immigrant rights advocates, and political leaders, who see it as an attempt to circumvent constitutional protections. In a filing to the court, lawyers for the plaintiff states described the order as a “modern version of Dred Scott,” referencing the infamous Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to people of African descent before the Civil War.

If implemented, the order would have sweeping consequences for millions of children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents, potentially rendering them undocumented and without legal protections.