Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, IMMIGRATION NEWS—Federal court enjoins Trump’s birthright citizenship EO, (Jan 24, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

One of the newly inaugurated President’s first actions likely violates the Fourteenth Amendment, the court order indicates; several other lawsuits relating to the EO have been filed.

Noting that there is a “strong likelihood” that the plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their claims of a Fourteenth Amendment violation in a lawsuit challenging one of Trump’s first executive orders—which purports to end birthright citizenship (entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”)—a federal district court in the state of Washington granted a temporary restraining order on Thursday.

The Executive Order (EO), issued January 20, 2025, and applicable to persons born in the United States “after 30 days from” the date of the order, states:

“Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

Federal court relief. In the court order issued by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in the Western District of Washington, Seattle, the judge found that the States of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, which brought the lawsuit, would face irreparable injury as a result of the order, which would harm them directly by forcing their agencies to lose federal funding and incur substantial costs. Moreover, those states’ residents would also be irreparably harmed by being deprived of their constitutional right to citizenship and all its associated rights and benefits, the order notes, subjecting them to deportation and family separation risk, depriving them of access to federal funding for medical care and eligibility for basic public benefits preventing child poverty and promoting child health, and also impacting their education, employment, and health.

The court found a “strong likelihood” that the plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of their claims that the EO violates both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. It also determined that the plaintiffs had shown they were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities “tips toward” the plaintiff states, and that the public interest “strongly weighs in favor of entering temporary relief.”

Other lawsuits. The Washington lawsuit is one of several that have already been brought in response to the EO, including cases in federal district court in Maryland, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.

“Un-American” act. The lawsuit brought in Massachusetts includes Maryland along with 22 other states as plaintiffs. “Birthright citizenship is a right enshrined in our Constitution,” said Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown. “It is a reflection of our country’s ideals, a belief that every baby born on U.S. soil is a member of our great nation and deserves to play a part in its future. Ending birthright citizenship is un-American, and our office will vigorously challenge this blatantly unconstitutional decision in court.”

The lawsuit in New Hampshire federal court was brought by the ACLU and other immigrants’ rights advocates. ACLU’s Executive Director Anthony D. Romero echoed Brown’s sentiment, stating: “Denying citizenship to U.S.-born children is not only unconstitutional—it’s also a reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values. Birthright citizenship is part of what makes the United States the strong and dynamic nation that it is. This order seeks to repeat one of the gravest errors in American history, by creating a permanent subclass of people born in the U.S. who are denied full rights as Americans.”

Over 100 years. The lawsuit brought in Maryland was brought by CASA and other immigrants’ rights groups, as well as several pregnant women whose children would be impacted, and it is being litigated by the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, CASA, and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) at Georgetown Law. On Thursday, the court issued an order setting a schedule for plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order in the lawsuit.

“Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and has been recognized by the Supreme Court as the law of the land for over 100 years,” said Rupa Bhattacharyya, Legal Director at ICAP. “The President of the United States has no power to amend the Constitution with the stroke of a pen on an Executive Order. We are confident that the Court will correct this overreach and ensure that all babies born in the United States receive their rightful citizenship and all of the privileges and benefits that flow from it.”

MainStory: TopStory Immigration ImmigrationNews IndividualRights WhiteHouseNews LitigationNewsTrends RemediesDamages GCNNews