L'ÉPOQUE - In a dramatic courtroom showdown, a federal judge delivered a resounding blow to President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at stripping U.S. citizenship from the children of undocumented immigrants. On Thursday, Judge John Coughenour labeled the order “blatantly unconstitutional,” setting the stage for a fierce legal battle that spans multiple states.
01.24.2025 © L'ÉPOQUE USA
By Barbara Robinson
The heart of this conflict lies in the 14th Amendment, a cornerstone of American democracy ratified in 1868 to guarantee citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil—a vital safeguard for former slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War. Yet, just days after his inauguration for a second term, Donald Trump unleashed an executive order designed to curb illegal immigration by denying citizenship to children born after February 19 if their parents are in the country unlawfully. This order not only aims to redefine citizenship but also prohibits U.S. agencies from recognizing these children as citizens.
As expected, a wave of legal challenges erupted across the nation, with at least five lawsuits initiated by 22 states and various immigrant rights organizations. The first hearing, featuring Washington, Arizona, Oregon, and Illinois, was an intense affair where Coughenour didn’t mince words: « I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order ».
For now, Coughenour’s ruling halts any attempts by the Trump administration to implement this contentious order for 14 days while further arguments are prepared. A follow-up hearing is set for February 6 to determine whether this block will extend indefinitely as the legal proceedings unfold.
At 84 years old and appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, John Coughenour grilled the DOJ attorney, Brett Shumate, about his confidence in the constitutionality of the order. « I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order », he challenged. Shumate stood firm, asserting that the administration’s arguments were untested in court and questioning the rationale behind a temporary restraining order that would expire before any real impact could occur.
The Department of Justice later vowed to “vigorously defend” Trump’s order, claiming it correctly interprets the 14th Amendment. But can we ignore history? The U.S. stands among roughly 30 nations that uphold birthright citizenship—principles rooted deeply in our national identity.
The 14th Amendment was crafted in response to one of America’s darkest times, ensuring that all born here are citizens—no exceptions. It 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 ».
Yet Trump’s directive claims that children of noncitizens fall outside this jurisdiction—an assertion Washington Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola deemed “absurd.” « Are they not subject to the decisions of the immigration courts? », he queried. « Must they not follow the law while they are here? ».
Polozola argued vehemently for immediate action against what he described as an order that would compel states to spend millions revamping healthcare and benefits systems. « The executive order will impact hundreds of thousands of citizens nationwide who will lose their citizenship under this new rule », he warned « Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case ».
In light of these developments, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown expressed little surprise at Coughenour’s skepticism towards the Justice Department’s stance. « Babies are being born today, tomorrow, every day, all across this country, and so we have to act now », Brown said. He added that it has been « the law of the land for generations, that you are an American citizen if you are born on American soil, period ».
« Nothing that the president can do will change that », he said.
A significant case concerning birthright citizenship emerged in 1898. The Supreme Court determined that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was a U.S. citizen due to his birth on American soil. After traveling abroad, he encountered the risk of being denied reentry by the federal authorities based on the assertion that he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
However, some proponents of immigration limitations contend that this ruling clearly pertains to children born to parents who are both legal immigrants. They argue that it is less certain whether this applies to children born to parents residing in the country illegally.
Trump’s directive led state attorneys general to express their personal ties to birthright citizenship. For example, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who is a U.S. citizen by birthright and the first Chinese American elected to the position of attorney general in the nation, indicated that the lawsuit held personal significance for him. Later on Thursday, he remarked that Coughenour made an appropriate decision.
« There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own », Tong said this week.