Federal judge in Seattle revisits Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle was the first to block President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, blasting it as “blatantly unconstitutional” at an initial hearing Jan. 23.

The case continues at a hearing before Coughenour on Thursday.

The president’s order signed on Inauguration Day seeks to eliminate automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are neither citizens nor permanent legal residents – to include people who are undocumented or have temporary visas.

The order sparked multiple lawsuits around the country, including one by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, which was joined by the states of Oregon, Arizona, and Illinois. They say the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which 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.”

Two weeks ago, Coughenour granted their request for a temporary restraining order that prohibited government agencies from taking any steps to implement these changes for 14 days.

RELATED: Seattle judge temporarily blocks Trump executive order on birthright citizenship

Then, as that order was set to expire this week, a federal judge in Maryland agreed, approving a preliminary injunction that keeps the order on hold nationwide while legal questions are resolved.

But despite that judge’s ruling, multiple lawsuits are expected to keep moving forward. Mike Faulk, spokesperson for the Washington Attorney General’s Office, said they will still seek their own preliminary injunction at Thursday’s hearing in Seattle.

He said, “The administration can – and is expected to – appeal any adverse rulings, including the Maryland injunction, and may seek to stay any injunctions. We need an injunction in our case to guarantee that the plaintiff states’ interests are protected regardless of what other courts do.”

Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project on behalf of community members affected by the executive order was consolidated with the Washington State case. Two women are now named as individual plaintiffs – according to court documents, they are “expecting mothers who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and who have due dates after the implementation date” of the order.

RELATED: Olympia protest joins national day of action in state capitols across the USA

Matt Adams, legal director at the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, welcomed the Maryland decision, but said he hopes the Seattle case and others are allowed to proceed, in case the Maryland decision is overturned.

“I would expect to see appeals in at least two or three of those cases if not all four of those cases, as the federal government is trying to pretty much throw mud at the wall to see if something will stick somewhere,” Adams said.

In their motion opposing the temporary restraining order, attorneys with the U.S. Justice Department representing President Trump said this: “As a textual matter, the Fourteenth Amendment affords so-called ‘birthright citizenship’ only to those persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction— and thus excludes children of noncitizens here illegally as well as children of temporary visa holders.”

The motion called the executive order “an integral part of President Trump’s recent actions, pursuant to his significant authority in the immigration field, to address this nation’s broken immigration system and the ongoing crisis at the southern border.”

The executive order was intended to take effect on Feb. 19, 2025.