Washington Attorney General Nick Brown during a press availability after a federal judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship in a case brought by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon, on January 23, 2025, in Seattle.
| Photo Credit: AP

A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday (January 23, 2025) temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive orderending the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” during the first hearing in a multi-state effort challenging the order.

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour repeatedly interrupted a Justice Department lawyer during arguments to ask how he could consider the order constitutional. When the attorney, Brett Shumate, said he’d like a chance to explain it in a full briefing, Judge Coughenour told him the hearing was his chance.

The temporary restraining order sought by Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington was the first to get a hearing before a judge and applies nationally.

The case is one of five lawsuits being brought by 22 states and a number of immigrants rights groups across the country. The suits include personal testimonies from attorneys general who are U.S. citizens by birthright, and names pregnant women who are afraid their children won’t become U.S. citizens.

Judge Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, began the hearing by grilling the administration’s attorneys, saying the order “boggles the mind.”

“This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Judge Coughenour told Mr. Shumate. Judge Coughenour said he’s been on the bench for more than four decades, and he couldn’t remember seeing another case where the action challenged was so clearly unconstitutional.

Also read | U.S. birthright citizenship: Indian-American lawmakers oppose President Trump’s executive order

Mr. Shumate said he respectfully disagreed and asked the judge for an opportunity to have a full briefing on the merits of the case, rather than have a 14-day restraining order issued blocking its implementation.

President Trump’s executive order, which he signed on Inauguration Day, is slated to take effect on February 19. It could impact hundreds of thousands of people born in the country, according to one of the lawsuits. In 2022, there were about 255,000 births of citizen children to mothers living in the country illegally and about 153,000 births to two such parents, according to the four-state suit filed in Seattle.

The Trump administration argued in papers filed Wednesday that the states don’t have grounds to bring a suit against the order and that no damage has yet been done, so temporary relief isn’t called for. The administration’s attorneys also clarified that the executive order only applies to people born after February 19, when it’s set to take effect.

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.

The lawsuits argue that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship for people born and naturalized in the U.S., and states have been interpreting the amendment that way for a century.

Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, the amendment says: “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.”

President Trump’s order asserts that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and orders federal agencies to not recognize citizenship for children who don’t have at least one parent who is a citizen.

A key case involving birthright citizenship unfolded in 1898. The Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he faced being denied reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that case clearly applied to children born to parents who were both legal immigrants. They say it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents living in the country illegally.

President Trump’s order prompted attorneys general to share their personal connections to birthright citizenship. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, for instance, a U.S. citizen by birthright and the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him.

“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,” said the Attorney General this week.

One of the lawsuits aimed at blocking the executive order includes the case of a pregnant woman, identified as “Carmen,” who is not a citizen but has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could lead to permanent residency status.

“Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” the suit says. “It denies them the full membership in U.S. society to which they are entitled.”

New Delhi:

After he was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States Monday, Donald Trump signed an executive order ending ‘birthright citizenship’, a 127-year-old amendment to the Constitution that guarantees American nationality to children born there, even if neither parent holds it.

The order – which has already been contested, in separate lawsuits filed by a coalition of 22 states and civil rights groups – was the opening shot in what will likely be a flurry of laws that will alter, dramatically, the United States’ immigration landscape, which was what Trump promised his voters.

Just how that landscape will change is anybody’s guess; Trump’s flurry will also include a clampdown on what the Republican has said as illegal immigration along the southern border, i.e., with Mexico.

But one impact – on Indian families living in that country, specifically those on temporary H1B or L1 visas, which do not grant permanent residency – is already being felt.

The C-Section Rush

Doctors and gynaecologists in the US are reporting a sudden increase in the number of pregnant Indian women, on such visas, asking for a caesarean, to ensure pre-term delivery of their children; i.e., before February 20, which is when Trump’s new mandate goes into effect.

The rush is because children born before that date will be granted citizenship, while those born after will not, subject to one big condition – they will only become citizens if at least one parent is already a citizen or a Green Card holder. If not, then out they go, when they turn 21.

To beat that, a report by The Times of India quoted Dr SD Roma in New Jersey as saying the majority of women lining up for a caesarean are in their eighth or ninth month of pregnancy.

“A seven-month pregnant woman came, with her husband, to sign up for a pre-term delivery. She isn’t due until sometime in March,” she told the publication.

Another medical professional, Dr SG Mukkala, an obstetrician and gynaecologist in Texas, said he has been advising similarly desperate couples of the dangers of a pre-term birth.

“Complications include underdeveloped lungs, feeding problems, low birth weight, neurological complications, and more… in the past two days I have spoken to 15-20 couples about this.”

Why The Panic For Indians?

At the heart of this panic is the fact that Indians in the US on H1B or L1 visas, of whom there are several lakhs, had anticipated being able to reside there for decades and have children, who would automatically become American citizens. But now that door is slowly swinging shut.

READ | How Trump’s Day 1 Order To End Birthright Citizenship Will Impact Indians

This won’t impact Green Card holders, whose children can still, even after Feb 20, be born as American citizens, but the waiting list for that oh-so valuable piece of paper is long, very long.

In fact, a million Indians are reportedly stuck in that queue, and there is no new about if, or when, many of those applications will be processed and that list reduce.

What it will impact is the children of Indians living on work visas, who will either have to self-deport, i.e., voluntarily return to their home nation, or apply for a visa to remain in the US.

What it will further impact is the entire family, since many will, naturally, elect to return with their children. Trump has acknowledged this, saying, “I don’t want to break up families”, but also declaring, “The only way you don’t… (is by) sending them all back”, suggesting there is no backdoor available.

What Is Birthright Citizenship?

Anyone born in the US is considered a citizen at birth.

This derives from the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1868. The amendment 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.”

EXPLAINED | What Is US Birthright Citizenship And Can Trump End It

There are an estimated 13-14 million immigrants living, illegally, in the US, and their children, if born in that country, are considered American citizens. 

Can Trump Do This?

No president has ever tried to redefine the rules of citizenship using executive orders.

But Trump’s attempt to make history has put him on a collision course with the Supreme Court and, if that course holds, a landmark decision on who can, and who cannot, be an American citizen.

If courts decide to protect ‘birthright citizenship’, then only an amendment can change that.

But an amendment would require two-thirds of both houses and approval by three-quarters of state legislatures, a process that will likely take years, and that is something of which Trump will be aware.

This, then, is set to be a very long-term game, one that might extend beyond his second term.

The American Constitution has not been amended since 1992.

With input from agencies

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.

Attorneys General from 22 States sued Tuesday (January 21, 2025) to block President Donald Trump’s move to end a century-old immigration practice known as birthright citizenship guaranteeing that U.S.-born children are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.

Trump’s roughly 700-word executive order, issued late Monday, amounts to a fulfillment of something he’s talked about during the presidential campaign. But whether it succeeds is far from certain amid what is likely to be a lengthy legal battle over the president’s immigration policies and a constitutional right to citizenship.

Also read | Trump signs slew of executive orders: U.S. withdrawal from WHO, pardons for Jan. 6 rioters, and more

The Democratic Attorneys General and immigrant rights advocates say the question of birthright citizenship is settled law and that while Presidents have broad authority, they are not kings.

“The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period,” New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said.

The White House said it’s ready to face the States in court and called the lawsuits “nothing more than an extension of the Left’s resistance.”

“Radical Leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump,” White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a U.S. citizen by birthright and the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him.

“The 14th Amendment says what it means, and it means what it says —- if you are born on American soil, you are an American. Period. Full stop,” he said.

“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.”

At issue in these cases is the right to citizenship granted to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status. People in the United States on a tourist or other visa or in the country illegally can become the parents of a citizen if their child is born here.

It’s enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, supporters say. But Trump and allies dispute the reading of the amendment and say there need to be tougher standards on becoming a citizen.

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Most other countries confer citizenship based on whether at least one parent — jus sanguinis, or “right of blood” — is a citizen, or have a modified form of birthright citizenship that may restrict automatic citizenship to children of parents who are on their territory legally.

Trump’s order questions that the 14th Amendment extends citizenship automatically to anyone born in the United States.

Ratified in 1868 in in the aftermath of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment says: “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.”

Trump’s order asserts that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It excludes the following people from automatic citizenship: those whose mothers were not legally in the United States and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and people whose mothers were in the country legally but on a temporary basis and whose fathers were not citizens or legal permanent residents.

It goes on to bar federal agencies from recognizing the citizenship of people in those categories. It takes effect 30 days from Tuesday, on Feb. 19.

It’s not clear whether the order would retroactively affect birthright citizens. It says that federal agencies “shall” not issue citizenship documents to the people it excludes or accept other documents from states or local governments.

The 14th Amendment did not always guarantee birthright citizenship to all U.S.-born people. Congress did not authorize citizenship for all Native Americans born in the United States until 1924.

In 1898 an important birthright citizenship case unfolded in the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he had faced denied reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that while the case clearly applied to children born to parents who are both legal immigrants, it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status.

The issue of birthright citizenship arose in Arizona — one of the states suing to block Trump’s order — during 2011 when Republican lawmakers considered a bill that would have challenged automatic birthright citizenship. Supporters said then that the goal wasn’t to get every state in the nation to enact such a law, but rather to bring the dispute to the courts. The bill never made it out of the Legislature.

In addition to the states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco, immigrant rights groups are also suing to stop Trump’s order.

Chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts along with other immigrant rights advocates filed a suit in New Hampshire federal court.

The suit asks the court to find the order to be unconstitutional. It highlights the case of a woman identified as “Carmen,” who is pregnant but is not a citizen. The lawsuit says she has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could lead to permanent status. She has no other immigration status, and the father of her expected child has no immigration status either, the suit says.

“Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” the suit says. “It denies them the full membership in U.S. society to which they are entitled.”

In addition to New Jersey and the two cities, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin joined the lawsuit to stop the order.

Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington filed a separate suit in federal court challenging Trump’s order as well.

President Donald Trump signs an executive order on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office of the White House on January 20, 2025.
| Photo Credit: AP

Shortly after being sworn in on Monday (January 20, 2025), U.S. President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order cancelling the provision of “citizenship by birth”, which, if unchallenged, could directly affect thousands of Indian professionals working in the U.S. under H-1B and other temporary visas, who hoped to raise their families there.

Mr. Trump also said he planned to levy “100% taxes” on BRICS countries for attempting to move to “non-dollar” transactions, referring to the 10-nation grouping of emerging economies that includes India.

“As a BRICS nation, they’ll have a 100% tariff if they so much as even think about doing what they thought, and therefore they will give it up immediately,” he said, erroneously referring to Spain as a BRICS member.

The grouping at present comprises Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates.

In addition, Mr. Trump’s plans to crackdown on undocumented and illegal immigrants could hit about 7.25 lakh Indians, of which nearly 18,000 are already on a “final list for removal” or deportations.

Jaishankar-Rubio meet

As concerns grew in India over Mr. Trump’s announcements, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar was set to meet incoming U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss priorities for the India-U.S. bilateral relationship and the Quad.

The one-on-one meeting, which would be Mr. Rubio’s first with any foreign dignitary, was due to take place on Tuesday afternoon in Washington, following a meeting of the Quad Foreign Ministers, including Australia’s Penny Wong and Japan’s Iwaya Takeshi.

The Quad Foreign Ministers are expected to discuss dates for the Quad Summit to be held in India later this year, while during the bilateral meeting Mr. Jaishankar and Mr. Rubio would discuss Mr. Trump’s visit to India and taking forward the strategic partnership, as well as the concerns over immigration and tariffs.

According to the public schedule released by the U.S. State Department for the U.S. Secretary of State’s first day, after he was confirmed by the Senate on Monday, Mr. Rubio will meet State Department employees and then hold talks with all Quad Foreign Ministers. The meeting of the Indo-Pacific grouping, that China has criticised, is significant as it is Mr. Rubio’s first foreign policy engagement.

On Monday, Mr. Jaishankar was accorded a front-row aisle seat right in front of the podium where Mr. Trump took oath.

Mr. Jaishankar’s seat was several rows ahead of the Foreign Ministers of Australia and Japan, both countries that are treaty allies of the U.S.

“[I] attended the Inaugural festivities in Washington this evening, [an] occasion to meet key members of President Trump’s Administration,” Mr. Jaishankar wrote on social media, posting his photographs with members of Mr. Trump’s Cabinet and leaders of the Senate and the U.S. Congress.

Mr. Rubio’s decision to meet the Quad Foreign Ministers first is also important as it comes amid Mr. Trump’s own outreach to China, including an invitation to Chinese President Xi Jinping for the inaugural ceremony on Monday, which Chinese Vice-Premier Han Zheng attended.

Mr. Rubio, known for his tough views on China, has been banned from travelling there and was sanctioned twice by Beijing over his comments criticising Chinese human rights violations in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

At his confirmation hearing last week, Mr. Rubio said he believed that China was the “most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary [the U.S.] has ever confronted”.

“We welcomed the Chinese Communist Party into the global order, and they took advantage of all of its benefits and they ignored all of its obligations and responsibilities. Instead, they have repressed and lied and cheated and hacked and stolen their way into global superpower status, and they have done so at our expense and at the expense of the people of their own country,” Mr. Rubio said.

The prominence of the Quad Foreign Ministers at the Trump inauguration and in Mr. Rubio’s schedule are believed to be both signal a priority for the Indo-Pacific partnership as well as a pointed message to Beijing.