On January 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at terminating birthright citizenship. Signed on January 20, the order sought to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. Judge Coughenour, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, labeled the order as “blatantly unconstitutional,” referencing the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil.
The executive order was set to take effect on February 19, 2025, but faced immediate legal challenges. Twenty-two states, along with civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations, filed lawsuits arguing that the order violated constitutional rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) emphasized that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause has been a settled matter for over a century.
Legal experts pointed to the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to virtually all children born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ nationality. This precedent poses a significant obstacle to any executive action attempting to alter birthright citizenship.
Despite the temporary block, the Trump administration signaled its intent to appeal the decision. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders stated, “We will continue to fight for the integrity of our nation’s citizenship laws.” However, constitutional scholars argue that any substantial change to birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, not an executive order.
This legal battle underscores the ongoing national debate over immigration policy and the interpretation of constitutional rights. As the case progresses through the courts, it is poised to become a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for the definition of American citizenship.
