A federal judge in Seattle, who has already voiced concerns about the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s directive to eliminate birthright citizenship, is scheduled to hear additional arguments on Thursday regarding a possible long-term injunction. This executive order targets children born in the United States to parents who lack legal status or are present under temporary lawful arrangements, such as student or tourist visas.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, will oversee the hearing. Attorneys for the Trump administration, four states challenging the order, and an immigrant rights organization representing a proposed class of expectant parents are all expected to make their cases. The session in Seattle comes on the heels of a significant development in Maryland, where another federal judge issued a nationwide hold on the policy in a parallel lawsuit. That separate case involves immigrants’ rights groups and pregnant women whose soon-to-be-born children would be directly impacted by any changes to birthright citizenship.
Below is a detailed breakdown of the current landscape regarding President Trump’s birthright citizenship order and the various legal actions it has spurred.
The Executive Order at a Glance
President Trump’s executive order specifically aims to end the automatic granting of U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil if their parents are present in the country unlawfully or are only in the United States on a temporary lawful basis. In practical terms, this could affect not only those in the country without documentation but also individuals on student visas, tourist visas, and potentially other short-term visas.
For the moment, however, the policy remains inactive. Two weeks ago, Judge Coughenour issued a 14-day temporary restraining order, calling the directive “blatantly unconstitutional.” He blocked its enforcement while the courts consider whether the presidential action can withstand judicial scrutiny. Then, on Wednesday, Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland instituted a more enduring injunction that preserves the pause on the executive order until the core legal issues can be resolved—unless the Trump administration manages to overturn her ruling on appeal.
When asked by Judge Boardman if the administration planned to appeal her injunction, a Justice Department attorney explained he did not have immediate authority to commit to any course of action. Thus, for now, the policy remains suspended in two jurisdictions, pending further legal developments and possible appeals.
The Role of the Seattle Court
Judge Coughenour, who has served on the bench for more than four decades, was notably candid during a hearing last month. He remarked that few of the countless cases he has presided over have presented an issue as straightforward as this one, underscoring what he perceives to be a direct constitutional conflict posed by the executive order. His temporary restraining order was set to expire on Thursday, prompting the new hearing. During this session, he will deliberate on whether to grant a preliminary injunction akin to the one issued by Judge Boardman in Maryland, thereby extending the hold on the policy.
In total, 22 states, along with several organizations, have filed lawsuits to block the executive order. Thursday’s hearing before Judge Coughenour features four states—Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington—that have jointly challenged the measure. Their case is being heard alongside a lawsuit filed by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project on behalf of a proposed class of expectant parents. In an interesting twist, 18 other states, led by Iowa, have submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Trump administration’s stance, indicating a notable split among the states on this contentious issue.
Parallel Legal Proceedings Across the Country
Even as Seattle prepares for its Thursday hearing, additional legal proceedings are unfolding elsewhere. In Maryland, as noted, Judge Boardman recently granted a broad injunction that halts any implementation of the executive order. Meanwhile, a Massachusetts court is set to conduct its own hearing on Friday, involving yet another coalition of 18 states, including New Jersey as the lead plaintiff, all seeking to invalidate the administration’s attempt to curtail birthright citizenship.
These legal challenges hinge primarily on interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment, ratified in 1868 during Reconstruction after the Civil War, was notably shaped by the rejection of the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision. That infamous ruling determined that Dred Scott, an enslaved man, was not a citizen despite living in a state where slavery was illegal. In stark contrast, the Fourteenth Amendment asserts that everyone born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of both the nation and the state in which they reside.
Core Constitutional Dispute
Opponents of the executive order assert that the Fourteenth Amendment’s language unequivocally confirms that children born on U.S. soil—regardless of their parents’ immigration status—are American citizens. They point to longstanding legal precedent, in particular an 1898 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that the only exceptions to birthright citizenship are for children of foreign diplomats, individuals present during hostile occupation, those born on foreign ships in U.S. waters, and children of members of sovereign Native American tribes.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, contends that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. It argues that the Constitution does not contain what it terms a “windfall clause” granting automatic citizenship to those who evade or breach federal immigration laws. In its legal briefs, the administration insists that the long-established understanding of “subject to the jurisdiction” must exclude children born to parents who are not permanent residents or are in the country illegally.
What Lies Ahead
At present, the immediate future of the executive order hinges on the outcomes of multiple federal court proceedings. Judge Coughenour’s decision on whether to extend his temporary restraining order could significantly affect the Trump administration’s ability to enforce the measure while the central questions of constitutionality remain unresolved. Likewise, the proceedings in Maryland, Massachusetts, and possibly other jurisdictions will continue to shape the legal landscape and might prompt appeals that ultimately bring the dispute before higher courts.
Currently, the United States is among roughly 30 nations worldwide that adhere to the principle of jus soli, or “right of the soil.” Most of these countries are in the Western Hemisphere, including both Canada and Mexico. The debate over whether or how to restrict the practice in the U.S. encapsulates wider questions about constitutional interpretation, national identity, and immigration law enforcement.
For now, all eyes remain on the courts. Until a final judicial decision is rendered—or unless the administration successfully appeals the existing injunctions—birthright citizenship as it has long been practiced in the United States will stay intact, and the broader implications of any potential reversal remain a matter of significant public, legal, and political debate.