Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump executive order redefining citizenship rights

SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order redefining birthright citizenshipcalling it “patently unconstitutional” during the first hearing as part of a multistate effort challenging the order.

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour repeatedly interrupted a Justice Department lawyer during the proceedings to ask how he could consider the order constitutional. When the lawyer, Brett Shumate, said he would like the opportunity to explain himself in a full briefing, Coughenour told him the hearing was his chance.

The temporary restraining order requested by Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington was the first to go to a hearing before a judge and applies nationwide.

The case is one of five lawsuits filed by 22 states and a number of immigrant rights groups across the country. The lawsuits include personal testimony from attorneys general who are legal U.S. citizens and name pregnant women who fear their children will not become U.S. citizens.

Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, began the hearing by questioning the administration’s lawyers, saying the order was “mind-boggling.”

“This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour told Shumate. Coughenour said he has been on the bench for more than four decades and cannot recall seeing another case in which the challenged action was so clearly unconstitutional.

Shumate said he respectfully disagreed and asked the judge for the opportunity to have a full briefing on the merits of the case, rather than being issued a 14-day restraining order blocking its implementation .

In support of the states, Washington Deputy Attorney General Lane Polozola called the government’s argument that children of parents living in the country illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “absurd.” United.

“Aren’t they subject to immigration court decisions? he asked. “Don’t they have to follow the law while they’re here?”

He also said the restraining order was justified because, among other reasons, the executive order would immediately require states to spend millions to revamp health care and benefits systems to accommodate the status citizenship status of an applicant.

“The executive order will impact hundreds of thousands of citizens across the country who will lose their citizenship under this new rule,” Polozola said. “Births cannot be suspended while the court considers this matter. »

Trump’s executive order, which he signed on inauguration dayis expected to come into effect on February 19. According to one of the lawsuits, this could impact hundreds of thousands of people born in the country. In 2022, there were about 255,000 births of citizen children to mothers living in the country illegally and about 153,000 births to two such parents, according to the suit filed by four states in Seattle.

The Trump administration argued in papers filed Wednesday that states had no basis to take legal action against the order and that no harm had yet been done, so a temporary measure was not necessary. Administration lawyers also clarified that the order only applies to people born after Feb. 19, when it is expected to take effect.

The United States is one of around thirty countries where birthright citizenship – the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” – is applied. Most are found in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico.

The lawsuits argue that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship to people born and naturalized in the United States, and states have interpreted the amendment that way for a century.

Ratified in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War, the amendment reads: “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. »

Trump’s order asserts that children of noncitizens are not subject to United States jurisdiction and directs federal agencies not to recognize citizenship to children without at least one parent who is a citizen.

A key case involving birthright occurred in 1898. The Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the country. After traveling abroad, the federal government denied him the right to return to the country on the grounds that he was not a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

But some supporters of immigration restrictions argued that this case clearly applied to children born to parents who were both legal immigrants. They say it is less clear whether this applies to children born to parents living in the country illegally.

Trump’s order prompted attorneys general to share their personal ties to birthright citizenship. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, for example, a natural-born American citizen and the nation’s first elected Chinese-American attorney general, said the trial was personal to him.

“There is no legitimate legal debate on this issue. But the fact that Trump is completely wrong won’t stop him from inflicting grave harm on American families like mine right now,” Tong said this week.

One of the lawsuits seeking to block the executive order involves the case of a pregnant woman, identified as “Carmen,” who is not a citizen but has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application which could lead to permanent resident status.

“Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship constitutes serious harm,” the suit states. “It deprives them of the full membership in American society to which they are entitled. »

___

Catalini reported from Trenton, New Jersey.