A federal judge in Seattle has indefinitely halted an executive order that sought to eliminate birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents without legal immigration status. The ruling, issued Thursday, marks the second such decision against the policy in as many days.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour’s nationwide preliminary injunction follows a temporary restraining order he granted two weeks prior, which put an initial 14-day pause on the policy’s implementation.
“The rule of law should not be treated as an obstacle to policy goals,” Coughenour stated. “In this courtroom, it remains a guiding principle that I intend to uphold.”
Shortly after the ruling, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal. Meanwhile, 18 Republican-led states, with legal backing from Pete Serrano, a former candidate for Washington state attorney general, urged the court to allow the executive order to proceed.
The executive action aimed to restrict birthright citizenship to children whose parents are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. It was set to take effect on February 19. According to legal filings, approximately 153,000 children were born nationwide in 2022 to parents without legal immigration status, including 4,000 in Washington state.
Birthright citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868. The 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.”*
The executive order challenged this interpretation, arguing that the phrase *“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”* excludes children of undocumented immigrants.
However, attorneys opposing the order countered that these children are still subject to U.S. laws and that stripping their citizenship would deprive states of critical federal funding for services.
Coughenour ruled that such a fundamental change requires a constitutional amendment, not an executive directive.
“If the government seeks to alter this longstanding constitutional right, it must follow the appropriate legal process,” he stated. “Attempting to bypass this process is unconstitutional.”
Legal arguments referenced an 1898 Supreme Court case, *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, which upheld birthright citizenship for a man born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents. The ruling established that citizenship extends to all individuals born on U.S. soil, barring narrow exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.
While the administration’s legal team argued that citizenship only applies to those with a permanent domicile, the opposing attorneys pointed to language in the *Wong Kim Ark* ruling stating that all individuals living in the U.S. are under its jurisdiction and protection.
This ruling follows a similar decision from a Maryland federal judge, who also blocked the policy on constitutional grounds. A third case, involving 18 states, is scheduled for a hearing on Friday.
Legal experts anticipate the matter will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where three justices were appointed by the former president. Until then, the injunctions are expected to remain in effect unless overturned by a higher court.
Speaking after the ruling, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown emphasized the constitutional stakes of the case.
“We live in a democracy, not a monarchy,” Brown said. “The president must follow the law, and if changes to the Constitution are sought, there is a defined process to do so.”
