One should not have needed to wait until the start of his second presidency to understand that Donald Trump could not care less about constitutionally protected values or upholding the rule of law, that “Make America Great Again” has less to do with restoring a better quality of life to the American people than it is to shape the nation the way it best suits him and the rich and powerful in his social circle.
On day one, Trump binge-signed executive orders like Oprah handing out cars to her studio audiences. Among these orders were some promises made on the campaign trail and the days leading up to the Inauguration, like revoking Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility programs, declaring only two accepted genders, male and female, and seeking to end birthright citizenship, a right embedded into the 14th Amendment since 1868, ratified soon after the U.S. Civil War.
Clearly, and more blatant than ever, the President only cares about what’s written in the Constitution if it can somehow be used in furtherance of his agenda, because, as in this case, he has shown no qualms about undermining the nation’s founding documents when it suits him. Evidently, his official steps towards trampling over the 14th Amendment have not sat well with immigration lawyers all around the country.
This overreaching measure also did not please the first federal judge to decide whether to rule against or in its favor. Of course, unless he lacks any and all capacity for foresight, the 47th President cannot have reasonably expected his unconstitutional incentive would be taken in stride by those who’ve dedicated their careers to ensuring the Constitution and the rights therein protected are not trodden on.
Multi-state lawsuits backed by the Constitution and previous Supreme Court rulings
Donald Trump’s Agenda 47’s “Day One Executive Order Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegals and Outlawing Birth Tourism,” which was published in May 2023, declared that it would “explain the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment, that U.S. Citizenship extends only to those both born in AND ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.” It stands to logic that Trump believes the Supreme Court of 1898, which upheld birthright citizenship in The United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, did not understand the 14th Amendment’s “clear meaning,” and he must be more qualified to do so.
On Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, the Republican President released an order to U.S. agencies compelling them to deny citizenship documents to babies born of parents who have not yet acquired permanent residency. As a direct pushback to Trump’s “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” order, twenty-two Democrat-led states are now involved in fighting it in federal court.
Eighteen states – California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin – as well as the cities of Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, filed one lawsuit in Massachusetts’ Federal District Court. Four other states – Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington – filed a second lawsuit in the Western District of Washington. Furthermore, immigrant rights groups filed their own suit in Maryland. Joining this latter lawsuit, are also women who fear for the citizenship rights of their own children.
On Thursday, three days after Trump signed the order, the judge in the Washington lawsuit, Senior U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, blocked it for 14 days after hearing 25 minutes of arguments. During the hearing, the federal judge called the order what many already knew it to be: “Blatantly unconstitutional.”
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” the judge stated, “I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is.”
He further added: “I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”
Unlike some might jump to conclude, the 84-year-old judge was not appointed by a Democrat. The Honorable John Coughenour ascended to the federal bench under none other than President Ronald Reagan, who is surely not known for having implemented progressive policies, on the contrary.
Kamala Harris’ catchphrase “We are not going back,” an echo of what seems now like a distant time, has not lost its meaning — especially when one can see all the steps the current President is taking to ensure that, in purposeful ways, the country is sent to the past while also getting rid of guardrails it needs to safeguard the future.
If, with a stroke of a pen, Trump and his buddies can redraft the meaning of the 14th Amendment, next, the reelected President could wake up and on a whim decide to revise the 22nd Amendment because he dislikes having a two-term limit on his hunger for power.
Published: Jan 23, 2025 12:08 pm