A federal judge in Seattle has issued a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to redefine birthright citizenship, a policy granting automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents' immigration status. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour characterized the executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional,” prompting a significant legal pushback from multiple states.

The lawsuit, initiated by Democratic-led states including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, claimed that Trump's order violated the 14th Amendment, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This amendment establishes the fundamental principle of jus soli, or “right of the soil,” that has governed citizenship law for over a century.

Signed on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2025, this executive order was intended to limit citizenship to children born to parents who are either U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Under the proposed order, it would effectively strip citizenship from children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents or those on temporary visas, impacting potentially hundreds of thousands of newborns annually, including 255,000 births recorded in 2022 from mothers living illegally in the country.

During the hearing, Judge Coughenour scrutinized the Justice Department's rationale for the order, expressing disbelief that any legal expert could consider it constitutional. “This is a *blatantly unconstitutional order*,” Coughenour remarked, indicating that he has seen few cases so overwhelmingly favoring the plaintiffs' arguments after more than four decades on the bench.

The Trump administration, unwavering in its stance, has argued that the birthright citizenship concept encourages illegal immigration. It claims the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment does not universally apply to all individuals born within U.S. borders, specifically excluding those born to non-citizen parents not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

This ruling represents a significant legal hurdle for Trump, who has declared intentions to appeal. “*Obviously, we’ll appeal it,*” Trump commented, suggesting that the matter will likely escalate through the judicial system. Notably, the order has already sparked multiple lawsuits, including actions from civil rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and various states challenging its legitimacy.

As this legal battle unfolds, it raises critical questions regarding the balance of authority between executive actions and constitutional rights, highlighting the contentious landscape of immigration policy within the United States. This complex interplay of law, rights, and state sovereignty will likely ripple through upcoming court cases and public discourse.

For more on the original proceedings and its implications, refer to NPR, BBC, and the HuffPost.