Federal Judge Issues Temporary Injunction Against Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
The judge characterized birthright citizenship as a crucial constitutional entitlement.
A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from enforcing the president’s directive that would terminate automatic U.S. citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants residing within the country.
These rulings were prompted by numerous legal challenges, with various cases filed across the country by Democratic state officials, immigrant rights advocates, and expectant mothers seeking to halt Trump’s policy.
The lawsuit in Washington was initially filed in January by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. In addition to the Maryland lawsuit, another challenge has emerged in Massachusetts, where a coalition of states, the District of Columbia, and the County of San Francisco filed a suit last month.
Related Articles
Lane Polozola, Assistant Attorney General for Washington, who represented the plaintiff states in front of Coughenour, argued that both the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark indicated that Trump’s directive was unconstitutional. The 1898 case involved a man born to Chinese immigrants who was denied re-entry to the United States after a trip to China.
Polozola urged the judge to issue a nationwide injunction to ensure that states could be fully protected, asserting that state lines should not determine citizenship status. He argued that Coughenour should proceed with the injunction despite the fact that the federal judge in Maryland had already enacted a nationwide injunction, suggesting that the plaintiffs could not rely solely on that case.
Drew Ensign, Deputy Assistant Attorney General with the DOJ, contended that the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark decision should not be interpreted as conferring citizenship to the offspring of undocumented immigrants. He argued instead that the case pertained to a man born to lawful permanent residents of the United States.
The citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment states: “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.”
It further asserted that the privilege of U.S. citizenship does not extend to an individual whose mother’s presence was lawful but temporary and whose father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident when that individual was born.
Immediately after Ensign concluded his arguments, Coughenour delivered his ruling verbally. In a written order, he stated that the plain meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” encompasses “anyone who answers to the political or judicial authority of the United States.”
He asserted that this principle “unequivocally applies to children born in the territorial United States—regardless of the immigration status of their parents.”
According to the judge, the plaintiff states would suffer irreparable harm due to Trump’s directive.
“The Order will directly impact the Plaintiff states, immediately increasing unrecoverable costs for providing essential medical care and social services to the States’ residents and creating substantial administrative costs for state agencies compelled to comply with the Order,” Coughenour stated.
He also indicated that the other individual plaintiffs faced irreparable harm due to “constitutional infringement and the looming threat of deportation.”
