President Donald Trump did not inform reporters that he planned to file an appeal after a federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked his attempt to terminate US citizenship by birthright.
Following a 25-minute hearing on Thursday, US District Court Judge John Coughenour declared the Trump executive order “blatantly unconstitutional” and issued a restraining order that prevents it from occurring.
Almost anybody born in the United States is automatically granted citizenship under a long-standing interpretation of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
Trump wants to repeal the law that applies to children whose parents are temporarily or illegally abroad.
Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon are the four states who have requested that the order be paused while the federal court considers their legal challenge.
Judge Coughenour questioned the Trump administration’s lawyers throughout the arguments, asking “where are the lawyers?” when the Trump team drafted the executive order. He reprimanded me for my assertion that the order was valid.
For 14 days, the executive order will be suspended while additional legal actions are conducted.
Trump, who has made numerous unilateral moves since taking office again on Monday, has long pledged to implement this specific reform.
According to an executive order, US government departments and agencies are required to refuse citizenship to children of migrants who entered the country illegally or on temporary visas.
In accordance with the Department of Justice’s (DoJ) court files, E applies to children who were born on February 19 and later.
According to reports, the administration intends to prevent persons who they believe do not qualify for citizenship from obtaining documentation like passports in order to execute the law.
Additionally, any implementation of the order by federal authorities was temporarily halted by the judge’s decision.
The case is being challenged by four states, arguing that the 14th Amendment and US law “automatically give citizenship upon individuals dem born for di United States” and that the president does not have the authority to modify the Constitution.
They further claim that citizens of those states will “suffer immediate and serious harm” if the injunction is put into effect.
“Di individuals wey dem go collect dia United States citizenship from dem go become undocumented, subject to removal or detention, and many go dey stateless,” the complaint states.
Although judges disagree, the Trump Department of Justice argues that the state does not have a warrant for a “extraordinary measure” of a temporary restraining order.
As stated in part of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, “All persons born or naturalized for the United States, and subject to di jurisdiction thereof, be citizens of the United States.”
According to the DoJ, the word “and subject to di jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of non-citizens who entered the US illegally and specifies that the order is a “integral part” of Trump’s plan to fix the nation’s “broken immigration system and ongoing crisis for the southern border.”
According to a court challenge filed by the state, 255,000 infants were born to illegal moms in the United States in 2022.
Courts have interpreted this provision to grant citizenship to anybody born in the United States, with very few exclusions, such as the offspring of foreign diplomats.
In the absence of a direct amendment to the US Constitution, which would need the consent of all US states and a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress, experts predict that the matter will be determined by the courts.
Federal government attorneys say they intend to appeal the decision and anticipate that the matter will ultimately reach the US Supreme Court.
Beginning in the days following the American Civil War, the birthright citizenship amendment resolved the issue of the citizenship of former slaves who were liberated and born in the United States.
Attorney Lane Polozola of Washington State argues in court that Trump’s order will return the country “to one of our… darkest chapters.”
Judge Coughenour, who paused the presidential order, has been serving on the Western District of Washington court since 1981. He was selected by Republican former President Ronald Reagan.
Together with the District of Columbia and the city of San Francisco, a consortium of eighteen other states led by Democrats have filed a separate challenge to the executive order.
Trump’s order is also being challenged in court by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
What does “birthright citizenship” mean, and how does it begin?
The first language of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment establishes the “birthright citizenship” principle:
“All persons born or naturalized for di United States, and subject to di jurisdiction thereof, be citizens of di United States and of di state where dem dey reside.”
Some who oppose immigration claim that the policy is a “great magnet for illegal immigration” and that it encourages pregnant women without legal status to cross the border to give birth—a practice they refer to as “birth tourism” or “anchor baby” birth.
In 1868, following the conclusion of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was ratified. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in 1865, while the Fourteenth Amendment resolved the issue of citizenship for former slaves who were emancipated and born in the United States.
In earlier Supreme Court rulings, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the court ruled that African Americans could never be citizens of the United States. The 14th Amendment supersedes the AM.
In 1898, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Wong Kim Ark v. United States that children of immigrants were entitled to birthright citizenship.
Wong, a 24-year-old Chinese immigrant who was born in the United States, was refused re-entry upon his return from a trip to China. Wong effectively argues that since I was born in the United States, my parents’ immigrant status has no bearing on how the 14th Amendment is applied.
“Wong Kim Ark vs. United States confam say regardless of race or di immigration status of person parents, all persons born in di United States dey entitled to all of di rights wey citizenship dey offer,” written Erika Lee, director of the University of Minnesota’s Immigration History Research Center. “Di court never re-examine dis issue since den.”
ALSO READ:
Oscars 2025: Complete List of 97th Academy Award Nominees Revealed.
