Seattle judge blocks Trump order to end birthright citizenship — again

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle has blocked President Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship.

Coughenour is the second judge to approve a preliminary injunction that keeps the order on hold while legal questions are resolved.

On Wednesday, U.S District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland issued the first preliminary injunction against the order. That ruling came after Coughenour granted Washington Attorney General Nick Brown's request for a temporary restraining order two weeks ago.

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

At Thursday morning's hearing in Seattle, Coughenour was about as clear in his opinion of Trump's order as he was at the initial hearing in January, once again calling Trump's order "unconstitutional."

"In this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon, which I intend to follow," Coughenour said. "In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today."

"Birthright citizenship is a fundamental constitutional right," he added. "The 14th Amendment secures the blessings of liberty to our posterity by bestowing on all those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction the rights of citizenship. We are all citizens subject to the rule of law. No amount of policy debate can change that."

Coughenour signed the preliminary injunction about 30 minutes after the hearing began, making clear where he stood on the matter.

"The fact that the government has cloaked what is, effectively, a constitutional amendment under the guise of an executive order is equally unconstitutional," he said. "The Constitution is not something with which the government may play policy games. If the government wants to change the exceptional American grant of birthright citizenship, it needs to amend the Constitution itself."

RELATED: The history of birthright citizenship goes back to 1898

Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown said Coughenour's decision reaffirmed "what has been the law of the land for 150 years."

"If we want to make that policy change as a country, then we should go through that process [to amend the Constitution] and have a debate in this country, and not simply have a purported king signing executive orders," Brown said.

Despite the Maryland injunction, Washington Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola argued at the start of the hearing that an injunction in this case was "essential," because "circumstances may well be different tomorrow."

Mike Faulk, spokesperson for the Washington Attorney General’s Office, previously explained their position: "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."

The Trump order at issue was dubbed "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," which would do away with automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents without legal status — a right protected by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Washington state sued, and was joined by Oregon, Arizona, and Illinois. A lawsuit filed by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project on behalf of community members affected by the executive order was also consolidated with the Washington state case.

Matt Adams, the legal director for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, said they filed their lawsuit on behalf of three pregnant women whose unborn children would be harmed by the executive order. But he said one plaintiff withdrew over fears of publicity.

One of the remaining two plaintiffs is a “noncitizen from Honduras” according to court documents, which state, “She is in removal proceedings and has filed an application for asylum before the immigration court.” Her child is due in March.

The second plaintiff is “a noncitizen from El Salvador” who “has filed an application for asylum before United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.” Her child is due in July.

Adams noted that one of the plaintiffs already has a 5-year-old son who is a U.S. citizen.

“I mean the arbitrary and capricious nature of this order in dividing these siblings – one being recognized as a citizen and the other not, placing this family in fears of family separation, it just has no basis in the law,” he said. “And that’s why we were so happy with the ruling.”

Adams said he expects the multiple legal challenges to make their way to federal appeals courts.

“We expect that the federal government is going to appeal any order enjoining the executive order,” he said. “So it’s going to now go before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. At the same time there’s the order out of Maryland that will most likely be appealed to the Fourth Circuit. And there’s a few other cases pending that could days from now issue their own orders.”

He predicted that the federal courts will continue to “forcefully reject” the executive order.

The U.S. Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.

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

In their complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the plaintiffs noted that the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment was passed and ratified in the wake of the Dred Scott decision in 1857 "where the Supreme Court ruled that Black Americans who were enslaved or were descended from enslaved persons could not be citizens."

The complaint said the amendment clarified that "all individuals born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. Its operation is automatic."