The judge said he’s been on the bench for decades and he couldn’t remember seeing another case where the action challenged so clearly violated the constitution.

SEATTLE — A federal judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order reinterpreting birthright citizenship, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” during the first hearing in a multi-state challenge to the order.

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, questioned the Justice Department’s defense of the order, repeatedly interrupting lawyer Brett Shumate. When Shumate requested a full briefing to explain the order’s legality, Coughenour pointed out that the hearing was his opportunity to present that argument.

The temporary restraining order, filed by Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington, applies nationwide and is the first to be heard in court. It is part of a broader effort involving five lawsuits filed by 22 states and several immigrant rights groups. The lawsuits include personal stories, such as those from attorneys general who were born in the U.S. and pregnant women who fear their children may not be granted citizenship.

Coughenour expressed strong doubts about the legality of the executive order, saying it “boggles the mind” and warning Shumate that the order was “blatantly unconstitutional.” He also noted that, after more than 40 years on the bench, he could not recall a case where the constitutionality of an action was so clear-cut in violation of the law.

Shumate disagreed respectfully, requesting more time for a full legal briefing rather than a temporary block on the order.

In response, the Department of Justice (DOJ) stated that it would “vigorously defend” the president’s executive order, asserting that the order “correctly interprets the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” The DOJ emphasized its intention to present a full argument to the court and the American public, who, it said, are eager to see immigration laws enforced.

Representing the states, Washington Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola criticized the government’s claim that children of undocumented parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. “Are they not subject to the decisions of immigration courts?” Polozola asked. “Must they not follow the law while they are here?”

Polozola argued that the executive order would impose immediate financial burdens on states, forcing them to overhaul healthcare and benefits systems to reexamine citizenship status for applicants. He also stated that the order would harm hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens, leaving them potentially without citizenship due to the new rules.

While the Trump administration maintains that the executive order would only affect children born after February 19, 2020, it still argued that the restraining order was unnecessary.

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, commenting after the hearing, said he wasn’t surprised by Coughenour’s dismissive attitude toward the DOJ’s position. He emphasized that birthright citizenship has been the law for generations, rooted in the 14th Amendment and reaffirmed in the 1898 Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark, which ruled that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen.

Brown also underscored the historical significance of the Citizenship Clause, which was established in the aftermath of the Civil War and rejected the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision from 1857, which denied African Americans citizenship.

“Nothing that the president can do will change that,” Brown said, stressing that birthright citizenship is foundational to the nation’s legal identity.

The case is part of a broader legal and political fight over the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all people born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction. Trump’s order seeks to exclude children born to parents who are not U.S. citizens or legal residents, a position that directly challenges the long-standing interpretation of the amendment.

The lawsuits include personal testimonies from people affected by the potential loss of citizenship, including “Carmen,” a pregnant woman who has lived in the U.S. for over 15 years and is in the process of applying for permanent residency. The suit argues that stripping these children of their birthright would deny them “full membership in U.S. society,” labeling it a “grave injury” for them and their families.

As the legal battle continues, state and immigrant rights groups vow to fight the order at every level, arguing that it undermines both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.