Department of Research, Studies and International News 24-01-2025

A U.S. federal judge has issued a significant ruling blocking an executive order by former President Donald Trump that aimed to restrict birthright citizenship. This constitutional right, grounded in the 14th Amendment, ensures that anyone born within the United States automatically becomes a citizen, irrespective of their parents’ legal status.

On Thursday, District Court Judge John Coughenour in Seattle, Washington, granted a temporary restraining order halting the enforcement of Trump’s directive. Judge Coughenour did not mince words, describing the order as “blatantly unconstitutional.” Reflecting on his extensive judicial career, he remarked, “In over four decades on the bench, I can’t recall a case where the constitutional question was as unequivocal as this. How did such an order even make it to my courtroom?”

The order has been met with widespread criticism from civil rights organizations and legal experts, who view it as a direct attack on the long-standing principles of U.S. citizenship. Advocacy groups argue that such a measure undermines a fundamental aspect of American democracy and poses risks to vulnerable populations, including children born to undocumented or immigrant parents.

The executive order was part of a broader set of policies introduced by the Trump administration to curtail immigration. Its provisions specifically targeted children born in the United States to non-citizen parents, including those residing legally within the country. Within days of the order’s issuance, a wave of legal challenges emerged. At least five lawsuits were filed, involving officials from 22 states as well as prominent civil rights organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Thursday’s court decision stemmed from a lawsuit brought by four Democratic-led states: Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington. This marked the first of the legal challenges to advance to the hearing stage. At the hearing, Washington Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola argued, “This order strips citizenship from children born today. It’s an unprecedented assault on their fundamental rights.”

The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, has served as the cornerstone of birthright citizenship in the United States for over a century. It explicitly states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle, reinforcing the notion that citizenship by birth is an inherent right under the U.S. Constitution.

The Trump Administration’s Justification

Despite the clear constitutional precedent, the Trump administration argued that the 14th Amendment was misinterpreted. It claimed that the amendment was never intended to apply to individuals with undocumented parents, asserting that such parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Furthermore, the administration justified the order as a necessary measure to curb what it described as an “ongoing crisis at the southern border.”

The Department of Justice supported the executive order, stating that it was a critical component of broader efforts to address irregular migration. A key provision of the order instructed the Social Security Administration to withhold Social Security cards and numbers from children born after February 19 if at least one parent was neither a U.S. citizen nor a legal permanent resident. Critics warned that this policy would render affected children vulnerable to deportation and deny them access to essential government services, further marginalizing them.

Historical Context and Broader Implications

The U.S. is one of approximately 30 nations that recognize birthright citizenship. This principle was codified in the 14th Amendment as a direct response to the aftermath of the Civil War, ensuring that formerly enslaved individuals and their descendants would be granted full citizenship rights. By attempting to circumvent this foundational law, the Trump administration’s order has raised profound questions about the stability of constitutional protections in the face of shifting political agendas.

This court ruling represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle over immigration policy and constitutional rights. While the temporary restraining order halts the immediate implementation of Trump’s directive, the broader legal and political debates surrounding birthright citizenship are far from resolved.