Judge blocks Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship

A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order to end automatic citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil, dealing the president his first setback as he attempts to upend the nation’s immigration laws and to reverse decades of precedent.

At a hearing held three days after Mr. Trump issued his executive order, a federal district court judge, John C. Coughenour, sided at least for the moment with four states that filed a lawsuit. legal action. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” he said.

“Frankly,” he continued, challenging Trump administration lawyers, “I have difficulty understanding how any member of the bar could unequivocally state that this is a constitutional order. This leaves me perplexed. »

Mr. Trump’s order, issued in the early hours of his presidency, declared that children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants would no longer be treated as citizens. The order also extends to babies of mothers who are legally but temporarily in the country, such as tourists, university students or temporary workers.

In response, 22 states, along with activist groups and pregnant women, filed six lawsuits to stop the so-called order, arguing that it violated the 14th Amendment. Case law has long interpreted the amendment – ​​that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” – applies to any baby born in the United States. United, with a few exceptions.

In the case before Judge Coughenour of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, the attorneys general of the states of Washington, Illinois, Oregon and Arizona had argued that Mr. Trump’s order would deny rights and benefits to more than 150,000 children born each year and leave some of them stateless. States would also lose federal funding for various assistance programs.

In their briefs, the States cite the testimony of Walter Dellinger, then an assistant attorney general. In 1995, Mr. Dellinger told Congress that a law limiting birthright citizenship would be “unconstitutional on its face” and that even a constitutional amendment would “categorically contradict the constitutional history and constitutional traditions of the country.”

Lawyers for the federal government argued during the hearing that they should be given the opportunity to provide a more complete presentation to the court because the executive order would not take effect until next month. States responded that the administration’s order created an immediate burden on them, requiring them to change the systems that determine eligibility for federally supported programs, and that births of new babies would be clouded.

Justice Coughenour emphatically agreed with the States: “I have been on the bench for over four decades,” he said. “I can’t remember another case where the question asked was as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order. Where were the lawyers when this decision was made?

A separate federal lawsuit brought by 18 other states and two cities is under consideration in Massachusetts.