US Federal judge temporarily blocks Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship

A federal judge Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to end automatic citizenship to babies born on US soil, dealing the president his first setback as he attempts to upend the nation’s immigration laws and reverse decades of precedent.

In a hearing held three days after Trump issued his executive order, a US District Court judge, John C. Coughenour, sided at least for the moment with four states that sued. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” he said.

Trump’s order, issued in the opening hours of his presidency, declared that children born in the United States to immigrants living in the country without legal permission would no longer be treated as citizens. The order also extended to babies of mothers who were in the country legally but temporarily, such as tourists, university students or temporary workers.

In response, 22 states, along with activist groups and expectant mothers, filed six lawsuits to halt the so-called order, arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment. Legal precedent has long interpreted the amendment — that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” — applies to every baby born in the United States, with few exceptions.

In the case before Coughenour of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, the state attorneys general from Washington, Illinois, Oregon and Arizona had argued that Trump’s order would deny rights and benefits to more than 150,000 children born each year and leave some of them stateless. States would also lose federal funding for various assistance programs.

In their briefs, the states cite testimony from then-Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger. In 1995, Dellinger told Congress that a law limiting birthright citizenship would be “unconstitutional on its face” and that even a constitutional amendment would “flatly contradict the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional traditions.”

A separate federal lawsuit filed by 18 other states and two cities is being considered in Massachusetts.