Judge blocks Trump’s ‘blatantly unconstitutional’ executive order that aims to end birthright citize

[libertybele]

Judge blocks Trump’s ‘blatantly unconstitutional’ executive order that aims to end birthright citizenship

A federal judge said Thursday that President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship was “blatantly unconstitutional” and issued a temporary restraining order to block it.

Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee who sits in Seattle, granted the request by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and three other Democratic-led states for the emergency order halting implementation of the policy for the next 14 days while there are more briefings in the legal challenge.

“I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case whether the question presented was as clear,” Coughenour said.

“Where were the lawyers” when the decision to sign the executive order was made, the judge asked. He said that it “boggled” his mind that a member of the bar would claim the order was constitutional.

The Democratic-led states are seeking a temporary restraining order, as they argue that Trump’s executive order is a blatant violation of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all children born on US soil “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

An attorney for the state of Washington, Lane Polozola told the judge that “births cannot be paused” while the court considers the case.

“Babies are being born today here, and in the plaintiff states and around the country, with a cloud cast over their citizenship,” Polozola said.

Children denied citizenship under Trump’s order will face “longterm substantial negative impacts,” he added. .................

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/23/politics/birthright-citizenship-lawsuit-hearing-seattle/index.html

[Hoodat]

After 156 years of openly opposing the Fourteenth Amendment, Democrats suddenly consider it part of the Constitution?

[Bigun]

This so called judge is talking out of his behind! Has no clue!

[Smokin Joe]

This so called judge is talking out of his behind! Has no clue!

see this for a different line of thought on this (proof, imho, that the 14th was never intended to confer citizenship on someone just because they were born in the US)
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,551540.msg3128233.html#msg3128233

[DB]

Well at least the process has been started. Now it needs to be pushed up the judicial chain. And the judge should be removed for being completely clueless...

[bilo]

Well at least the process has been started. Now it needs to be pushed up the judicial chain. And the judge should be removed for being completely clueless...

It's going to be a good thing to finally have the SCOTUS rule on this. I'm praying they look at the reasoning behind the amendment and rule that just being born here doesn't convey citizenship.

[berdie]

It's going to be a good thing to finally have the SCOTUS rule on this. I'm praying they look at the reasoning behind the amendment and rule that just being born here doesn't convey citizenship.

I completely agree. How ever I really think there will have to be an amendment to enforce it. And looking at the number of states filing lawsuits to block it. I'm not optimistic.

[DCPatriot]

I completely agree. How ever I really think there will have to be an amendment to enforce it. And looking at the number of states filing lawsuits to block it. I'm not optimistic.

Afraid that the SCOTUS will rule similarly as they did on Roe v Wade...taking into account the culture's POV on the matter for the past several decades.

[libertybele]

I completely agree. How ever I really think there will have to be an amendment to enforce it. And looking at the number of states filing lawsuits to block it. I'm not optimistic.

Yes, there will need to be some type of amendment and therefore I don't think SCOTUS will even take up ruling on this.  If there ever was a time for Congress to try to pass an amendment to clarify, it is now.

The GOP Congress cannot just sit idly by like they normally do, they need to act.  It is unfortunate that the GOP doesn't hold a larger majority in the House.

In the same light, perhaps Trump needs to start presenting to his GOP Congress bills that he would like to see proposed and voted on.

Ruling by executive order takes care of some critical issues right now, but it is imperative that laws become enacted.  The GOP needs to get their House in order.

[libertybele]

Afraid that the SCOTUS will rule similarly as they did on Roe v Wade...taking into account the culture's POV on the matter for the past several decades.

Based on past actions, I don't think Roberts is going to side with Trump on much of anything..

[MeganC]

The EO started the discussion on ending anchor baby birthright.

Remember, Trump is a deal maker and the EO was just his opening move. 

[Hoodat]

The EO started the discussion on ending anchor baby birthright.

The problem is the 'anchor', not the 'baby'.  Declaring the baby to be a citizen does NOT give the parents the right to stay here.  Put a lien on them for unpaid medical bills.  Charge them for illegal entry.  Prosecute them.  Sentence them.  And finally after their sentences are served, deport their asses.  All of this can and should be done regardless of whether or not their children are considered to be citizens.

[Fishrrman]

Bele wrote:
"Based on past actions, I don't think Roberts is going to side with Trump on much of anything.."

This is the beginning of a "long march through the courts" for this issue.

The federal judge's ruling out of Washington is just the beginning.
I would expect more cases in federal court, perhaps one in every district.

Of course, they'll all be "appealed upward".
It will be up to the administration as to which of the appellate decisions will be best-served to appeal to the High Court. They'll have several from which to choose.

This will take some time. I don't expect the case to reach the Supreme Court until the term that begins in October this year, if it makes it by then.

And the Court's decision will (of course) be the final one of the term, so don't expect it until late June 2026 at the earliest.

How will the vote go?
We KNOW that there will be three votes against Mr. Trump (the three leftie ladies).
We can guess that there will be three votes solidly FOR Mr. Trump (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch).
Not sure how Barrett and Cavenaugh will go. Hope it's our way.
Roberts? I'd rate him a toss-up. Since he's "compromised", expect the left to pull out all the stops (and threats) against him.

So... I'm hoping for a 5-4 decision.
6-3 would be better. But that's the best we're gonna get.

[bilo]

I completely agree. How ever I really think there will have to be an amendment to enforce it. And looking at the number of states filing lawsuits to block it. I'm not optimistic.

I think it will all come down to how many originalists are on the court.

We will find out in 3-4 years. If they do rule as the amendment was originally intended the next issue will be it's application for those already here. I suppose the best course would be to apply it from the date of the ruling forward.

[Smokin Joe]

I think it will all come down to how many originalists are on the court.

We will find out in 3-4 years. If they do rule as the amendment was originally intended the next issue will be it's application for those already here. I suppose the best course would be to apply it from the date of the ruling forward.

Considering the number of illegals brought in in the past 4 years, and that they likely have made more than a few babies, the anchor needs to be cut from the baby.
Send them home with mom and dad, if present, but they are/were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home countries, so they should not have been covered by the misinterpretation of the 14th on the first place.

[Bigun]

Considering the number of illegals brought in in the past 4 years, and that they likely have made more than a few babies, the anchor needs to be cut from the baby.
Send them home with mom and dad, if present, but they are/were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home countries, so they should not have been covered by the misinterpretation of the 14th on the first place.

 

Please read this entire thread:

https://twitter.com/molmccann/status/1882166915508134211

[bilo]

Considering the number of illegals brought in in the past 4 years, and that they likely have made more than a few babies, the anchor needs to be cut from the baby.
Send them home with mom and dad, if present, but they are/were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home countries, so they should not have been covered by the misinterpretation of the 14th on the first place.

A good explanation I heard was you can't draft illegal aliens, or prosecute illegal aliens for treason. They are under the jurisdiction of another country. The children of these illegal aliens are not eligible to be citizens because of this.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Why wait 3-4 years?  This should be decided before the 2026 midterms.

Can't the DOJ fast-track this case or get it on the shadow docket?

This case is about the fundamentals of what makes someone a legal citizen of the United States and what it means to be under the 'jurisdiction' of the United States.

We need to strike while we have the advantage and the moment.

The longer it takes, the more sob stories the bleeding-heart liberal media will run on television to change people's minds and weaken their resolve.

[bilo]

Why wait 3-4 years?  This should be decided before the 2026 midterms.

Can't the DOJ fast-track this case or get it on the shadow docket?

This case is about the fundamentals of what makes someone a legal citizen of the United States and what it means to be under the 'jurisdiction' of the United States.

We need to strike while we have the advantage and the moment.

The longer it takes, the more sob stories the bleeding-heart liberal media will run on television to change people's minds and weaken their resolve.

I agree with you. A case of this magnitude should go straight to the SCOTUS, but they love their "process". They will argue this in the local court and Trump will lose. They will appeal to a 3 judge panel of the Appellate Court and Trump will lose. They will appeal to a full hearing of the Appellate Court and narrowly lose. Trump will appeal to the SCOTUS and should win, but who knows.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Could the DOJ appeal to another/higher Federal Court?

Could another state sue in a more Federal Court to start enforcing Trump's birthright citizenship policy?

The ying & yang of the same issue being contested by multiple parties in multiple courts might raise the urgency with which to get this to the Supreme Court quicker.

Multiple states ... multiple Federal courts ... states vs other states ... that might get SCOTUS attention.

If there isn't a crisis to propel this to SCOTUS quicker, manufacture one.

When has Trump ever cared about process, except when delay is in his favor?

[MeganC]

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.

Are the children of lawful tourists from Germany subject to the jurisdiction of the USA? Can a court order those German parents to leave their arguably American children in the USA? Or are the children also German?

[cato potatoe]

Alternate headline: 84 year old lawyer wants a permanent underclass to mow his lawn for cheap

[mountaineer]

This lawyer explains why the judge is incorrect:

https://twitter.com/RealKahall/status/1882857445002739850

[Bigun]

This lawyer explains why the judge is incorrect:

https://twitter.com/RealKahall/status/1882857445002739850

Yep! She knows what she is talking about for sure!

[Smokin Joe]

Yep! She knows what she is talking about for sure!

That was nicely done.