A federal judge in Seattle has signed a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour on Thursday heard a request made by four Democratic-led states to issue a temporary restraining order against the executive order signed by Trump that purports to limit birthright citizenship to people who have at least one parent who is a United States citizen or permanent resident.

"I have been on the bench for over four decades," said Judge Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. "I can't remember another case where the case presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order."

MORE: 22 states challenge Trump's executive order cutting birthright citizenship

"In your opinion, is this executive order constitutional?" he asked DOJ attorney Brett Shumate.

"Yes, we think it is," Shumate said, drawing the judge's rebuke.

"I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is an unconstitutional order. It boggles my mind," Coughenour said. "Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?"

Trump's executive order reinterpreting the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship -- long promised by Trump on the campaign trail -- is expected to spark a lengthy legal challenge that could define the president's sweeping immigration agenda.

Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and two cities have sued Trump over the executive order, and the president faces at least five separate lawsuits over the policy.

Thursday in Maryland, a federal judge held a pre-hearing conference by telephone in a challenge brought by two nonprofit groups and five pregnant undocumented women seeking to temporarily block the order from taking effect.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman asked the DOJ if the child of parents who are subject to the executive order is born this afternoon in the United States, whether they would be a United States citizen.

"As I read the executive order, the answer is yes," responded DOJ attorney Brad Rosenberg, who suggested that enforcement of the order will not begin until Feb. 19, based on Section 2(b) of the executive order, which directs agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to newborns born 30 days after the order.

The DOJ argued that "any sort of temporary or emergency relief in the immediate short term is unnecessary and inappropriate," saying that, based on their knowledge, agencies "haven't taken any of the steps yet regarding enforcement of the order."

But plaintiffs were not convinced by the DOJ that the executive order will not be applied immediately to newborns.

"We think the executive order is maybe less clear than Mr. Rosenberg has suggested," plaintiff's attorney Joseph Mead said.

DOJ attorneys subsequently acknowledged that they have not had an opportunity to consult with the agencies on whether they have taken any steps to enforce the order.

The judge scheduled a hearing on the matter for Feb. 5.

In Seattle, Judge Coughenour scheduled Thursday's in-person hearing in the case brought by the attorneys general of Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Illinois. In a federal complaint filed on Tuesday, the four attorneys general argued that Trump's policy would unlawfully strip at least 150,000 newborn children each year of citizenship entitled to them by federal law and the 14th Amendment.

MORE: Trump's record-breaking Day 1 executive actions prompt legal challenges

"The Plaintiff States will also suffer irreparable harm because thousands of children will be born within their borders but denied full participation and opportunity in American society," the lawsuit says. "Absent a temporary restraining order, children born in the Plaintiff States will soon be rendered undocumented, subject to removal or detention, and many stateless."

The lawsuit argues that enforcement of Trump's executive order would cause irreparable harm to the children born from undocumented parents by preventing them from enjoying their right to "full participation and opportunity in American society."

"They will lose their right to vote, serve on juries, and run for certain offices," the complaint says. "And they will be placed into lifelong positions of instability and insecurity as part of a new underclass in the United States."

Lawyers for the Department of Justice, now under new leadership, opposed the request for a temporary restraining order in a court filing Wednesday.

Taking effect next month, Trump's executive order seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship by arguing a child born in the United States to an undocumented mother cannot receive citizenship unless his or her father is a citizen or green card holder.

MORE: With the stroke of a pen, Trump tries to remake America: ANALYSIS

While most countries confer a child's citizenship based on their parents, the United States and more than two dozen countries, including Canada and Mexico, follow the principle of jus soli or "right of the soil."

Following the Civil War, the United States codified jus soli through the passage of the 14th Amendment, repudiating the Supreme Court's finding in Dred Scott v. Sanford that African Americans were ineligible for citizenship.

"President Trump and the federal government now seek to impose a modern version of Dred Scott. But nothing in the Constitution grants the President, federal agencies, or anyone else authority to impose conditions on the grant of citizenship to individuals born in the United States," the states' lawsuit argued.

The Supreme Court further enshrined birthright citizenship in 1898 when it found that the San Francisco-born son of Chinese immigrants was an American citizen despite the Chinese Exclusion Act restricting immigration from China and prohibiting Chinese Americans from becoming naturalized citizens.

By seeking to end birthright citizenship, Trump's executive order centers on the same phrase within the 14th Amendment -- "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- that the Supreme Court considered in 1898. Trump's executive order argues that text of the 14th Amendment excludes children born of parents who are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, such as people who are unlawfully in the U.S.

While legal scholars have expressed skepticism about the legality of Trump's executive order, the lawsuit could set the stage for a lengthy legal battle that ends up before the Supreme Court.

Watch Now

ABC News’ Aaron Katersky and Armando Garcia, and ABC News legal contributor Kim Wehle discuss the legal hurdles stemming from President Donald Trump’s executive order.

Catch up on the developing stories making headlines.

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48581872)

you don't get to stay in the US bc your kid is a US citizen, let alone receive legal status

parents remain subject to deportation, and the kid's legal status has no legal effect on that of the parents

sure you might stay illegally, but you are subject to deportation at any time

one of my friends from colombia came here to have her baby, kid is a US citizen, mom had to hie back to colombia and that's where she lives with the kid

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48581901)

keep doing it tho, i've been called a gook and a jewish latino, too

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48581908)

oh sure, not happening at all. no such thing.

"Approximately 88,000 legal-resident parents of US citizen children were deported in the 2000s, most for minor criminal convictions.[40]"

oh shit. 150,000 born each year, but a whopping 88,000 deported in the entire decade of 2000. your columbian friend was a criminal or does not exist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48581945)

had to hie? i took that to mean she could not stay. perhaps anchor baby requires the parent to apply to stay and his friend chose not to?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48582027)

Most people OPPOSE stripping children of BRC, even if they are children of illegals.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48583633)

Seattle Judge?

Totally unqualified?

Radical left?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48581885)

Funny they never mention how they will lose their right to gibs

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48581888)

lying fuck. subject to the jurisdiction thereof must mean something. what does it mean?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48581949)

back to my question

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48581966)

Let's presume that the US can't arrest & prosecute illegals in the country because they're not subject to US jurisdiction. No problem, that's what rendition is for. We have a big, beautiful facility in Cuba for people falling under that category.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48582878)

btw, lefty prof from YLS Peter Schuck thinks so too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48581996)

Here's a little hint, champ, where a party seeks relief based on an executive order being unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, the litigation has something to do with the 14th amendment.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48582713)

Wow sounds like this will ultimately need to go to SCOTUS for a final decision. Absolutely bonkers, who could have ever predicted that!!!!

lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48582624)

180, let's fast track this to SCOTUS ASAP. It was always headed there anyway and it was always going to be stayed in the interim, so the sooner Trump secures the only final call that actually matters, the better.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48582630)

January 20, 2025

Many of these aliens unlawfully within the United States present significant threats to national security and public safety, committing vile and heinous acts against innocent Americans. Others are engaged in hostile activities, including espionage, economic espionage, and preparations for terror-related activities. Many have abused the generosity of the American people, and their presence in the United States has cost taxpayers billions of dollars at the Federal, State, and local levels.

from above "it cannot be disputed that Native Americans, children of diplomats, and children of foreign soldiers did not and still do not receive BRC under that clause. whether or not DJT has unilateral power is one question but the more reasoned view, imo, is that Congress can regulate on the issue of children born to foreign citizens illegally in the US."

gee, i wonder if illegals being declared enemies can make them subject to treatment like "foreign soldiers"?

the obvious answer is maybe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48582890)

He's a blowhard, obviously.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48583092)

This has been the law of the land for decades? The issue is that it was decided randomly in a footnote to another case and never actually taken up by the supreme court.

Trump's trying to get this to the Supreme Court to get a ruling on it...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48583511)

'most unconstitutional thing i've ever seen!!!"

histrionics is really fucking stupid

and really fucking a lib thing

i wonder what this cocksucker thought about dobbs?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5668693&forum_id=2#48583927)