 "What is birthright citizenship and why did a US judge block Trump's order?")
A federal judge has stopped Donald Trump’s government from enforcing an order that limited automatic birthright citizenship in the US, calling it “clearly unconstitutional”.
Seattle-based judge John Coughenour, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, issued a temporary block on the order. This was done after four Democratic-led states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — asked for it. The order, signed by Trump on Monday, was his first major action after returning to office and is now facing its first legal challenge.
Let’s understand what birthright citizenship is in the US, why Trump is willing to end it and what the judge has said about Trump’s action.
What is birthright citizenship in the US?
Current laws in the US allow almost everyone born in the US to become a US citizen automatically. This is called “birthright citizenship” and is based on the legal idea of jus soli, which means ‘right of the soil’ in Latin. The concept comes from English common law, which stated that people born in England were naturally subjects of the country. However, there are rare exceptions today, such as children of foreign diplomats or children of enemies occupying US land.
After resuming office as US president on Monday, Donald Trump called birthright citizenship an “absolutely ridiculous” idea and signed an executive order to end it. He also claimed that the US is the “only country in the world” with such a rule.
Donald Trump’s executive order directs US agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the US if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Under this order, children born after February 19 would face deportation, denied Social Security numbers, government benefits, and legal work opportunities as they grow up. The US is one of about 30 countries, mostly in the US, that follows birthright citizenship based on jus soli or “right of the soil.”
Also Read
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to grant citizenship to former slaves, guarantees citizenship to anyone born or naturalised in the US. Trump’s order mentions that children of non-citizens are not under US jurisdiction and therefore ineligible for citizenship. If upheld, over 150,000 newborns could lose citizenship each year. The order has faced strong opposition, with at least six lawsuits filed, arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
What Judge John Coughenour said on Trump’s order
“I am having trouble understanding how a bar member could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional,” the judge told a US Justice Department lawyer defending Trump’s order. “It just boggles my mind,” he said.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour said of Trump’s policy.
Coughenour, 84, a Ronald Reagan appointee who was nominated to the federal bench in 1981, grilled the DOJ attorney, Brett Shumate, asking whether Shumate personally believed the order was constitutional.
“Under this order, babies being born today don’t count as US citizens,” Washington state Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola, referring to Trump’s policy, told the judge during the hearing. However, Donald Trump said he will challenge the ruling. "Obviously we’ll appeal,” the US President said.
What is the position of the Justice Department?
Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate argued that Donald Trump’s action was constitutional and called any judicial order blocking it “wildly inappropriate”. But before Shumate had even finished responding to Polozola’s argument, Coughenour said he had signed the temporary restraining order.
Shumate said the Trump administration's current arguments have never been litigated and that there was no reason to issue a 14-day temporary restraining order when it would expire before the executive order takes effect.
The Justice Department later said in a statement that it would “vigorously defend” the president’s executive order, which it said “correctly interprets the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.”