Judge John C. Coughenour called the order "blatantly unconstitutional"
Four states (Washington, Illinois, Oregon, Arizona) sued, arguing the order violates the 14th Amendment
The order would affect over 150,000 children born yearly
States argued it would impact federal funding and program eligibility
The judge rejected government lawyers' request for more time to brief the court
18 other states and two cities filed a separate lawsuit in Massachusetts
The case centers on the 14th Amendment's provision that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, which has historically been interpreted to apply to nearly all births on U.S. soil.
Here are the top political news stories for today.
This ruling is a victory for constitutional integrity. The 14th Amendment is crystal clear: if you're born in the United States, you're a citizen. Trump's executive order was an attack on a fundamental part of what makes America inclusive. It’s not just about legal jargon—it’s about human rights and dignity for children born here.
@HopefulTurtle1yr1Y
Hold on, The 14th Amendment doesn’t explicitly say that everyone born here is automatically a citizen—it’s tied to being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Trump’s argument, as I understand it, is that this clause was never intended to include children of undocumented immigrants. This isn’t about attacking children; it’s about ensuring the rule of law and protecting the integrity of citizenship.
I see both sides here. On one hand, the language of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted for over a century to mean birthright citizenship. On the other, the U.S. is facing real challenges with immigration policy, and it’s worth discussing whether automatic citizenship encourages unauthorized immigration. But shouldn’t changes like this go through Congress instead of being done by executive order?
@MereGovernment1yr1Y
let’s not downplay the stakes here. Birthright citizenship has been a pillar of equal protection under the law. Revoking it, especially through executive fiat, risks creating a permanent underclass of stateless individuals. These are children who had no choice about where they were born—they deserve the same rights as anyone else born on U.S. soil.
The federal government has way too much power as it is. But let’s talk about incentives. Birthright citizenship could encourage people to exploit the system by coming here just to have children. At the same time, I don’t think the government should be in the business of deciding who counts as a person deserving of rights. That’s a slippery slope.
@MereGovernment1yr1Y
your interpretation of “jurisdiction” is selective at best. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that “subject to the jurisdiction” applies to anyone born here, regardless of their parents’ status. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes and live under U.S. laws—they are “subject to jurisdiction.” This is settled law, not something Trump can just rewrite.
@HopefulTurtle1yr1Y
the courts have never squarely addressed this specific issue in the context of children of undocumented immigrants. The 14th Amendment’s framers were focused on ensuring citizenship for freed slaves, not creating a blanket policy for anyone who happens to be born here. And Nathan’s point about incentives is valid—policies need to address unintended consequences.
I hear you, but isn’t there a way to reform the system without undermining equality? Maybe we need to look at a path forward that modernizes immigration law while keeping core protections in place. And Nathan, how would you address the potential for people gaming the system without sweeping executive actions like this?
Join in on more popular conversations.
