A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday (Jan 23) has temporarily blocked the enforcement of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Monday (Jan 20), which aimed to restrict automatic birthright citizenship in the United States. The judge described the order as "blatantly unconstitutional."
US District Judge John Coughenour issued the temporary restraining order after a request from four Democratic-led states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. The order prevents the Trump administration from implementing the policy, which was part of the president's broader efforts to address immigration.
Also read: Trump slams ‘unfair’ EU trade policies, vows US will ‘do something about it’
'This is blatantly unconstitutional'
“This is blatantly unconstitutional,” Judge Coughenour said during the hearing, addressing a Justice Department lawyer defending the administration's position.
Washington Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola, representing the four Democratic-led states, argued against the order in court. “Under this order, babies being born today don’t count as US citizens,” Polozola said.
The executive order, signed during Trump’s first day in office, has faced backlash. Civil rights organisations and attorneys general from 22 states have filed five lawsuits against the policy, alleging it violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. This amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil.
What does Trump's birthright citizenship order mean?
The policy directs US agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the United States if neither parent is a US citizen or legal permanent resident. According to the order, children born after 19 February to such parents would not be considered citizens. They would also face deportation and be ineligible for Social Security numbers, government benefits, or lawful employment in the future. If implemented, more than 150,000 newborns each year would be denied US citizenship.
In a court filing submitted on Wednesday, the Justice Department defended the executive order, describing it as a critical step in addressing the nation’s “broken immigration system” and the “crisis at the southern border.”
(With inputs from agencies)