Second judge in two days blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order

U.S. President Trump's efforts to end "birthright citizenship" in the United States for children of undocumented immigrants have suffered another setback. Following a similar ruling by a federal judge in Maryland a day earlier, a federal judge in Seattle also blocked Trump's executive order, condemning the government for disregarding the Constitution for political gain. This ruling highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional principles.

Seattle District Judge John C. Coughenour issued an injunction on Thursday (Friday, Australian Eastern Daylight Time) to suspend Trump's order during a lawsuit filed by four states and an immigrant rights organization. These states and organizations are challenging the legality of the order, arguing it oversteps executive authority. The legal challenge underscores the deep divisions surrounding immigration policy.

Previously, a federal judge in Maryland also ruled in a similar case involving immigrant rights organizations and pregnant women whose unborn children could be affected. Both rulings temporarily halted the Trump administration's actions, offering a reprieve to those potentially impacted. These decisions signal a consistent judicial skepticism towards the executive order.

Trump's executive order aimed to end the practice of automatically granting citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented immigrants or hold temporary visas, such as student or tourist visas. Currently, the order has been suspended. Maryland District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a long-term injunction on Wednesday that will remain in effect until the substantive issues of the case are resolved, unless the Trump administration successfully appeals. This legal battle has significant implications for immigration law.

Following a hearing on Thursday, Judge Coughenour, appointed by President Reagan, issued his own injunction. Judge Coughenour stated that Trump was attempting to amend the Fourteenth Amendment for purely political reasons, an amendment that grants citizenship to persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Judge Coughenour emphasized that the rule of law cannot be ignored and that he would adhere to legal principles. His statement reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional values.

Coughenour's injunction was issued two weeks after he called Trump's order "blatantly unconstitutional" and issued a 14-day temporary restraining order to prevent its enforcement. The Department of Justice is expected to appeal these injunctions. A total of 22 states, along with other organizations, have filed lawsuits seeking to block the executive order. They argue that if the order takes effect, it could create a lower class of residents who are essentially stateless. The legal challenges highlight the broad opposition to the executive order.

The case before the Seattle judge involves the four states of Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington. The case has been consolidated with a lawsuit filed by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project on behalf of a group of prospective parents residing unlawfully in the United States. Eighteen states, led by Iowa, filed an "amicus curiae" brief in support of the Trump administration's position in the case. Another hearing is scheduled for Friday in a Massachusetts court. That case involves another group of 18 states challenging the order, including lead plaintiff New Jersey. Another challenge filed by the American Civil Liberties Union will be heard next Monday before a federal judge in New Hampshire. These multiple legal challenges underscore the widespread concern about the executive order's impact.

At the heart of these lawsuits is the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the American Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision held that Scott, an enslaved person, was not a citizen even though he had been taken to a state where slavery was prohibited. The amendment states, "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." The Fourteenth Amendment's interpretation remains a central point of contention in the debate.

The Trump administration has been trying to restrict illegal immigration and claims that non-citizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and that their children born in the U.S. are not entitled to citizenship. In response to the Maryland plaintiffs' lawsuit, the government argued: "The Constitution does not contain an accidental provision that grants U.S. citizenship to the children of those who circumvent (or openly defy) federal immigration law." This argument reflects the administration's restrictive view of citizenship rights.

The plaintiffs call this claim absurd, pointing out that undocumented immigrants are required to pay taxes and obey the law, and that undocumented immigrants between the ages of 18 and 26 are still obligated to register with the U.S. Selective Service System, meaning they could be drafted to fight for the United States. The United States is one of approximately 30 countries that practice birthright citizenship, also known as the principle of "jus soli." Most of these countries are located in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico. The ongoing debate highlights the different perspectives on citizenship and national identity.