Trump’s executive order faces federal roadblock over birthright citizenship

In a dramatic legal turn, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour has issued a temporary restraining order halting President Donald Trump‘s executive order to end birthright citizenship. The judge deemed the order, which sought to restrict the constitutional right to automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil, “blatantly unconstitutional.” This ruling has reignited debates over the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the scope of executive authority.

What Was Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order?

Signed on January 20, 2025, Trump’s executive order aimed to redefine birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The policy targeted children born in the United States whose parents are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Specifically, it sought to exclude:

1. Children born to parents in the U.S. unlawfully.
2. Children born to individuals in the U.S. on temporary visas, such as tourists or students.

The order was slated to take effect on February 19, 2025, but its sweeping implications sparked immediate legal and public outcry. Critics argued that the policy would create a significant population of stateless individuals, undermining constitutional protections.

Why Did Judge Coughenour Block the Order?

Judge Coughenour, who has served on the federal bench for over four decades, issued a temporary restraining order on January 23, 2025, delaying the implementation of the executive order for 14 days. During the court hearing, the judge strongly criticized the legality of the order, emphasizing that the 14th Amendment provides unequivocal protections for citizenship.

“The language of the Constitution is clear,” Coughenour stated. He argued that birthright citizenship is a settled constitutional principle upheld for over a century. Legal scholars have widely interpreted the 14th Amendment to confer automatic citizenship on nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, with exceptions only for children of foreign diplomats or enemy occupiers.

This interpretation has been reinforced by key legal precedents, including the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which established that children born to immigrant parents in the U.S. are entitled to citizenship. Judge Coughenour’s ruling adheres to this legal tradition, firmly rejecting the administration’s attempt to reinterpret constitutional guarantees.

What Are the Legal and Political Implications of the Ruling?

The legal battle surrounding this executive order underscores broader tensions between executive power and constitutional limits. Trump’s policy faced immediate lawsuits from civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argued that the order violated the 14th Amendment. Additionally, 22 state governments filed legal challenges to block its implementation.

A constitutional law expert noted that any attempt to unilaterally redefine citizenship is bound to fail under judicial scrutiny. “The Constitution explicitly defines citizenship. Executive orders cannot override constitutional protections without amending the document itself or involving Congress,” she explained.

The Department of Justice has already signaled its intention to appeal the ruling, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court. If taken up by the Court, the case would serve as a historic test of the executive branch’s authority to reinterpret constitutional provisions.

How Does the 14th Amendment Protect Birthright Citizenship?

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 during the Reconstruction Era, was designed to solidify citizenship rights for all individuals born or naturalized in the United States. Its language—“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”—has been interpreted as granting automatic citizenship regardless of parental immigration status.

Judge Coughenour’s ruling reflects the enduring strength of this constitutional guarantee. The policy’s opponents argue that undermining the 14th Amendment would erode a core principle of American democracy and open the door to broader restrictions on civil rights.

What’s Next in the Legal Fight Over Birthright Citizenship?

As the legal battle unfolds, the future of the executive order remains uncertain. While the restraining order temporarily halts its enforcement, the appeals process could bring the case back into the national spotlight.

Political analysts predict that the controversy surrounding birthright citizenship could become a key issue in the upcoming election cycle. Proponents of the policy argue that it addresses perceived abuses of the immigration system, while critics view it as an unconstitutional attack on the rights of vulnerable populations.

For now, Judge Coughenour’s ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s critical role in upholding constitutional protections. The legal challenges surrounding this executive order highlight the enduring tension between the executive branch and the Constitution’s foundational principles.