Federal judge in Seattle issues second decision blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship order

A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship in the United States.

As he spoke from the bench, senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a strong rebuke of Trump: “It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals.”

“The rule of law, according to him, is something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain,” Coughenour said. “Nevertheless, in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.”

Coughenour’s order blocked an executive order signed by Trump that claimed a baby born in America must have at least one parent who is either a citizen or a lawful permanent resident to automatically qualify for birthright citizenship.

The day after the president signed the order, Washington joined Illinois, Oregon and Arizona in the suit that argued the executive order violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A separate group of 18 states filed a similar lawsuit in Massachusetts, and on Wednesday, a judge in Maryland blocked the executive order in a case brought by Maryland-based CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project.

The case led by Washington was filed to ensure that “the state of Washington’s laws were protected,” said Washington Attorney General Nick Brown.

“And the court recognized that having a preliminary injunction in another state would not impact his ability, or the necessity, of a preliminary injunction here,” Brown said.

Coughenour previously issued a temporary restraining order in the case led by Washington, and Thursday he reiterated several of the comments he made during the Jan. 23 hearing.

“There are moments in the world’s history when people look back and ask ‘Where were the lawyers? Where were the judges?’ ” Coughenour said. “In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today. As a judge, my job is not only to uphold the law but to protect the rule of law itself.”

Coughenour added that birthright citizenship is a “fundamental constitutional right.”

Following the hearing, Brown said, “We reaffirmed what it means to be an American in this country.”

The ruling, Brown said, brings the country back to the “status quo that we’ve had in this country for 150 years.”

Brown previously said if the order were to take effect, more than 150,000 babies born in the country every year would lose automatic qualification for U.S. citizenship.

“So I’m really thrilled with the court’s reaffirmation with that today,” Brown said.

According to Brown, the preliminary injunction blocks the United States Government from taking “any action” to implement the executive order.

“We will see what next steps the United States tries to take, but for now, the law remains and will be subject to the courts’ further rulings,” Brown said.

In his preliminary injunction, Coughenour wrote that “citizenship by birth is an unequivocal constitutional right.”

“It is one of the precious principles that makes the United States the great nation that it is,” Coughenour wrote. “The president cannot change, limit, or qualify this constitutional right via an executive order.”

For the federal government, the argument hinges on the wording of the 14th amendment, which awards citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

In his executive order, Trump wrote that the fourteenth amendment “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

The use of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” lawyers representing the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in a court filing, “contemplates something more than being subject to this country’s regulatory power” and that the phrase offers more significance than simply abiding by the country’s laws.

The Justice Department also noted current limits to citizenship in the United States, writing that the children of foreign diplomats, as well as those of occupying enemies, do not automatically qualify for citizenship.

“If the United States has not consented to someone’s enduring presence, it follows that it has not consented to making citizens of that person’s children,” the Justice Department wrote.

According to the Justice Department, the executive order is a part of Trump’s “broader effort” to address the country’s immigration system and the “ongoing crisis” at the southern border.

The Justice Department further argued that the states lacked standing to bring the case, writing that they had not proven sufficient harms to bring the claims on behalf of residents.

In his preliminary injunction, Coughenour wrote that Washington is likely to succeed in the case and that the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment “is clear,” and that the Federal government had improperly interpreted the 14th amendment.

“For one, the government insinuates that ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ conditions citizenship upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,” Coughenour wrote. “But the text of the phrase requires no such exclusivity; it requires only that the person born in the United States be subject to it.”

Coughenour also wrote that the federal government “seems most preoccupied” with the immigration status of a child’s parents so that it “conflates the position of the child with that of their parents.”

“The fact of the matter is that the United States has consented to the citizenship of children born on its territory, through the ratification of the fourteenth amendment,” Coughenour wrote.