Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump’s executive order redefining birthright citizenship
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, aiming to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor lawful permanent residents. This move challenges the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all individuals born on United States soil.
[media-credit name=”EPA” link=”https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4mmrr7j8mo” width=1498 align=”center”]
[/media-credit]
The executive order specifies that individuals born thirty days after its issuance, or on February 19, 2025, will not be granted United States citizenship if their mother was unlawfully present in the country, or in a temporary status such as a student or tourist visa, and their father was neither a United States citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. The order faced immediate legal challenges. Attorneys general from 22 states, along with civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups, filed lawsuits arguing that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment. On January 23, United States District Judge John C Coughenour in Seattle temporarily blocked the order, describing it as “blatantly unconstitutional”. This ruling prevents the order’s implementation for fourteen days, pending further hearings.
The Department of Justice has announced plans to “vigorously defend” the executive order, setting the stage for a significant legal battle over the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the future of birthright citizenship in the United States. This development has sparked widespread debate, with critics arguing that the order could render affected children stateless and strip them of their rights. Supporters, however, contend that it is a necessary measure to address unlawful immigration. Further hearings are scheduled, including one on February 6 to consider a preliminary injunction.
The outcome of this legal battle will have profound implications for immigration policy and the interpretation of constitutional rights in the United States.
